Tweet
Anyone that's familiar with the modern technique of profiling. Could someone put here a general profile of the killer? Not to mention, what could've been done to draw him out, trap him, etc? In your opinion, how did he blend in so well, what would you be looking for if you could go back in time with knowledge of the MO but without knowledge of what he'll do next. All you have is the profile. What do you say to Abberline or anyone else? Who would you go to?
-
-
I'd be looking for someone local, non-descript who blends in, not someone who stands out. Someone familiar with police beats too. -
I may be wrong but, the last time we debated 'profiles', it was determined that a profile had never led to the capture of anyone. Like I say, this may have been proven wrong in the intervening years since we last talked about 'profiling', but the way things sit right now I don't know of any change.Regards, Jon S.Comment
-
The first known Profile of the Whitechapel Murderer.
"The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis..... The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middle-aged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.
Assuming the murderer to be such a person as I have just described he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times...."
Dr Thomas Bond, 10 Nov. 1888.
I totally agree with every point suggested by Dr. Bond. I believe each point raised can be deduced from the surviving evidence, profiling is not magic, it is more like taking a common sense view at the surviving evidence in the case.Regards, Jon S.Comment
-
Robert Anderson agreed with Dr. Bond. That's why Anderson eventually settled on Kosminski.Comment
-
You don't have anything to indicate Anderson agreed with Bond in 1888, do you?Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
We know Anderson's beliefs on 23rd Oct. 1888, about the police "not having the slightest clue of any kind" concerning any suspect. Of course his sudden fit of enlightenment to accuse Kozminski (a 23 yr old?), in his senior years, should ring alarm bells for anyone with a pulse.
Regards, Jon S.Comment
-
Hi Clark,Originally posted by clark2710 View Post
I don't really place much store in profiles.
I've seen them described on here as "the phrenology of the modern era" or something similar, and I'd say that's probably a fair assessment.
I've always been as confident as one can be however, that Jack will not have had a 100% hit rate.
I am certain that there will have been nights where he went home empty handed, or perhaps solicited a prostitute then failed to "follow through"!
With that in mind, I would suggest using female volunteers to closely interview the East End unfortunates about the proclivities of their clients, and I would be particularly interested in any punters who engaged the unfortunates services then bottled it or couldn't perform.
I'm honestly not sure whether Victorian policemen would have been prepared to ask the "down and durrrty" questions, but in the event that they did, I very much doubt that the women would have felt comfortable disclosing such details to a bunch of blokes (and official ones at that).
Comment
-
No, but Anderson requested that Bond prepare the profile, which seems to reflect his later writings on his Polish Jew suspect. And was it "a sudden fit of enlightenment" to settle on Kosminski, or did his demeanor have anything to do with Anderson's conviction?Originally posted by Wickerman View PostComment
-
With that in mind, I would suggest using female volunteers to closely interview the East End unfortunates about the proclivities of their clients, and I would be particularly interested in any punters who engaged the unfortunates services then bottled it or couldn't perform.
Hello Ms. Diddles,
"Bottled it?" I hate to think that at my age there is a sexual act I am not familiar with. I am hoping it is just the expression that is throwing me off.
c.d.Comment
-
Nah, if you've "bottled it", you failed at whatever you tried to do.Regards, Jon S.Comment
-
On reading the same files, I would have said it was Charles Warren who made the choice of Bond, Anderson wrote: "he feels that your eminence as an expert in such cases, etc.", the "he" being Charles Warren, which doesn't speak directly for Anderson's belief in Bond, but I think you realized that.Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
I don't think anyone can say with conviction why Anderson settled on Kozminski, though it should come as no surprise given his struggle to convince other's that his anti-semitic outlook was only their imagination.
What is more important is that at the time of the murders Kozminski was not a suspect, his candidacy seems to have come about as more of an afterthought.
Regards, Jon S.Comment
-
Hahahaha!Originally posted by c.d. View Post
Don't worry, c.d.
Your prowess remains intact!!!
By "bottled it" in this context, I was referring to punters who engaged the services of a prostitute, then appeared to change their mind or lose their nerve.Comment
-
-
Yes, Jon. But very soon after the C-5 murders. "Kosminski" being confined almost immediately afterwards.Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
Comment
-
This article might be of interest.
- JeffComment
Comment