Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[pinkmoon]

Surely Druitt must be a much better bet.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Errata and John

Many thanks for your replies.

I certainly believe some of these posts have been very useful. Tackling the subject of schizophrenia is clearly relevant when considering Aaron Kozminski as a suspect, but I think whether he was schizophrenic (Which I clearly believe) the rarity of such people becoming killers is a difficult concept to put across without sounding like you are equating Schizophrenia with Jack the Ripper. I'll certainly be taking this on board.

Clearly I don't see that a psychotic killer would have any problems convincing a prostitute, and as I said before we have no way of knowing how many Jack tried and failed to convince https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWaFqw8XnpA

I'm never convinced The Yorkshire Ripper is a great comparison, he's a lot older than Kozminski and in many ways Aaron is more typical, in age and known development. But Schizophrenia alone doesn't tell the whole story, it would have to be seen also in terms of personality disorder and a Catylist.

Hopefully as we discover more about his world and family we can one day make more sense of the ID Swanson tells us about.

Yours Jeff

[Errata]

Hi John

Managed to read this, vary interesting. Clearly demonstrates that more research in the area is required and seems to suggest that this is something the FBI are undertaking (Though I expect they are currently busy watching football) I will look forward to further information.

A friend placed this link on schizophrenia my Facebook this morning and it might make interesting reading.

I was shocked by the statistic that more people in the UK die from schizophrenia related causes (Mainly suicide) than die in road traffic accidents. I'm hoping Ereta will understand why I'm very cautious about directly linking people actually suffering from Scizophrenia to any program about Jack the Ripper. While clearly the condition and Aaron Kozminski's symptoms are going to be relevant (The section on sex is interesting) The rarity of such relationships and possible serial killings can't be stressed enough. I certainly think such events are unlikely in a modern world.

http://www.livingwithschizophreniauk.org/advice-sheets/schizophrenia-and-dangerous-behaviour/

Many thanks Jeff

I have always understood, though I suspect that merely mentioning schizophrenia in relation to the case might be enough to make things difficult. Not in a schizophrenics own mind, but in the minds of "normal" people who think it gives them a pass at making someone's live harder. The perpetually fearful. It's always a tightrope walk, and you walk it as gracefully as you can manage. And how we do that is left to our best judgement. I'm a balanced plate kinda girl. I think that if you present one option you present the other and let people choose. I also know that doing it that way is no guarantee someone doesn't get hurt. I think the best anybody can do is act fairly and honorably and understand that some things are beyond our control, and probably outside of our influence, even if the timing be suspicious.

Our television shows often address such problems with a 90 second PSA at the end. Say, an announcement that schizophrenics are no more likely to be violent, 50 times more likely to commit suicide, but they can recover, they can manage their symptoms, and if you or someone you know needs help call blah blah blah. It's completely a cover your ass thing on the part of the network or the filmmaker, but some good comes from it. We have gotten people in who got our information from calling the number at the end of a program.

The playwright part of me would handle it a different way, but some dramatic shortcuts work for documentaries, and some don't.

[John G]

Hi John

Managed to read this, vary interesting. Clearly demonstrates that more research in the area is required and seems to suggest that this is something the FBI are undertaking (Though I expect they are currently busy watching football) I will look forward to further information.

A friend placed this link on schizophrenia my Facebook this morning and it might make interesting reading.

I was shocked by the statistic that more people in the UK die from schizophrenia related causes (Mainly suicide) than die in road traffic accidents. I'm hoping Ereta will understand why I'm very cautious about directly linking people actually suffering from Scizophrenia to any program about Jack the Ripper. While clearly the condition and Aaron Kozminski's symptoms are going to be relevant (The section on sex is interesting) The rarity of such relationships and possible serial killings can't be stressed enough. I certainly think such events are unlikely in a modern world.

http://www.livingwithschizophreniauk.org/advice-sheets/schizophrenia-and-dangerous-behaviour/

Many thanks Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I was very impressed by the Canter article on serial killer classification, which illustrates that, following Hazelwood's pioneering research, this is still a complex and developing area.

Interesting article on schizophrenia, which suggests that whilst evidence indicates that sufferers are significantly more likely to be violent than the general population, attacks against strangers are extremely rare.

Of course, we do not know for certain what Kosminski's mental state was in 1888, and we obviously cannot conclude, with any degree of certainty, that he was suffering from schizophrenia.

I think your reference to Sutcliffe is highly relevant. Of course, he was eventually diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and, whilst an active serial killer, he claimed to be suffering from depression and hallucinations.

Nonetheless, he was reasonably well organized. For instance, he successfully lured victims into his vehicle, even at the height of the Yorkshire Ripper scare. He also made basic attempts to conceal some of the bodies. And, on one occasion, he had the foresight to realize that he'd made a mistake by giving a victim a brand new banknote, that he'd received as part of is wages. As a consequence, he returned to the scene of crime in order to retrieve it. When it couldn't be found he then adopted the strategy of trying to decapitate the victim, in order to create the impression that she had not been killed by the Yorkshire Ripper. He confessed: "It was my intention to create a mystery about the body."

It's also worth noting that Robert Napper, a paranoid schizophrenic, committed 3 murders- in one case removing body parts as trophies. He is also suspected of being the Green Chain Rapist, who carried out at least 70 attacks over a 4 year period.

What's also extremely interesting about Napper is the fact that, despite suffering from both schizophrenia and Aspergers syndrome, he was in many respects extremely organized. Thus, he planned his attacks in considerable detail, marking locations of foxholes, paths and surveillance spots on maps. In fact, hidden in his home were detailed notes about the targets he stalked, as well as maps of their homes. There were also notes about locations of grates, foxholes, paths and access gates for possible rape sites, surveillance spots or hideaways for his weapons. Police also found hand drawn maps, a London A-Z-with pages marked with black dots highlighting certain areas- and notes on how to restrain someone.

I therefore agree that Kosminski can in no way be ruled out. In fact, since this thread started I've changed my mind about his status: whereas I previously regarded him as a very unlikely suspect, I now regard him as extremely plausible.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,


Canter et al (2004) http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/8639/1/CanterOrganised.pdf

Hi John

Managed to read this, vary interesting. Clearly demonstrates that more research in the area is required and seems to suggest that this is something the FBI are undertaking (Though I expect they are currently busy watching football) I will look forward to further information.

A friend placed this link on schizophrenia my Facebook this morning and it might make interesting reading.

I was shocked by the statistic that more people in the UK die from schizophrenia related causes (Mainly suicide) than die in road traffic accidents. I'm hoping Ereta will understand why I'm very cautious about directly linking people actually suffering from Scizophrenia to any program about Jack the Ripper. While clearly the condition and Aaron Kozminski's symptoms are going to be relevant (The section on sex is interesting) The rarity of such relationships and possible serial killings can't be stressed enough. I certainly think such events are unlikely in a modern world.

http://www.livingwithschizophreniauk.org/advice-sheets/schizophrenia-and-dangerous-behaviour/

Many thanks Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

But even if Mrs Long's evidence is considered reliable- and it's somewhat undermined by Cadosch's testimony- we can't assume that the man and woman that she saw had only just met. All we can say is that she first encountered them when they were outside on the pavement.

In fact, if Chapman was soliciting, and that is the reason they entered 29 Hanbury Street, I would consider it extremely unlikely that they had just met; unless Chapman had been waiting outside the address, I.e kerb crawling, for potential clients but, if that were the case, why were there no other sightings? I mean, Albert Cadodch should definitely have seen her when he went outside at 5:15. And if Chapman wasn't soliciting, then why did she enter 29 Hanbury Street with her killer?

Hi John
The fact is we can't know for certain how long Jack was with the victims or where they first met. Its speculation.

What I've said is that Hazalwood believes that they were blitz attacks and given the definition Garry has supplied to date he is not contradicting the critia Garyy himself laid out.

I think I personally have been fairly clear that I think its possible for a psychotic killer to make enough conversation with his victim to create the ruse required for that prostitute to go with him.

However I've only ever made the claim that given what is known about Aarons illness and Psychotic Serial killers per ce, he can't be ruled out.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

"In criminological terms the blitz attack is one where in there is little to no interaction between the offender and victim prior to violence taking place."

"Indeed, in many cases first contact between the victim and assailant is the attack. It is ferocious, unremitting and often results in the most appalling of injuries."

I thought I'd re-post exactly what Garry has been arguing for the last few days just incase he decides to try and move the goal post. If this is the FBi definition as he was apparently arguing up until today then it simply leaves room for Hazelwood opinion to fit that of a 'Blitz' attacker.

If he's now claiming that this is the wrong quote and the FBi don't allow for the words 'Little' and in the later 'in many case' (Caveates of course) then surely his new quotes are going to be in contradiction to the ones he has until now been purporting?

"Yes, I’ve seen some of your TV output, including the programme in which you contacted the spirit of Kate Eddowes in the cellar of the Ten Bells. Gripping stuff. Especially the bit where ‘Kate’ revealed the name of her killer."

I again reproduce the quote where he directly claims that the Definitive Story has Kate in the Ten Bells and reveals the name of the killer… Either a pack of lies of course or Gary has simply not watched my TV output and is confusing me with someone else. If he's making the mistake i believe he is its also a good time to say that I have never worked for a production company called Antix...

Yours Jeff

[John G]

As I've pointed out several times now, the distance between the place the victim was seen with the possible killer and the murder spot are a matter of feet…

The place Chapman was murdered is now open on a Sunday so you can pace it out

Yours Jeff

But even if Mrs Long's evidence is considered reliable- and it's somewhat undermined by Cadosch's testimony- we can't assume that the man and woman that she saw had only just met. All we can say is that she first encountered them when they were outside on the pavement.

In fact, if Chapman was soliciting, and that is the reason they entered 29 Hanbury Street, I would consider it extremely unlikely that they had just met; unless Chapman had been waiting outside the address, I.e kerb crawling, for potential clients but, if that were the case, why were there no other sightings? I mean, Albert Cadodch should definitely have seen her when he went outside at 5:15. And if Chapman wasn't soliciting, then why did she enter 29 Hanbury Street with her killer?

[Jeff Leahy]

Who said I’d provided a direct FBI quotation? Not me, that’s for sure. I paraphrased the definition of the blitz attack as accepted within the criminological paradigm. The FBI definition states that the blitz attack involves no precrime interaction between offender and victim.

Thats not the quote you gave. You gave a quote that clearly said 'Little'

If that is the case Hazelwoods quotations would be correct

Your now claiming it says Non what so ever, so your basically making it up as you go along.

Perhaps making you mind up which might be useful and being specific on our sources will make what you are trying to argue coherent

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

I made no mention of The Definitive Story. None whatsoever. It’s you that keeps banging on about it as though it is the subject of this thread.

Excuse me you made direct reference to my documentary claiming it features Kate Eddows in the Ten Bells which it clearly does NOT

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Garry
Jeff unfortunately also keeps conveniently leaving out the part where they say that the attack and murder takes place where the subject first encounters the victim. Something the ripper obviously didn't do.

As I've pointed out several times now, the distance between the place the victim was seen with the possible killer and the murder spot are a matter of feet…

The place Chapman was murdered is now open on a Sunday so you can pace it out

Yours Jeff

[Garry Wroe]

That's right, Abby. It's why the FBI refers to the blitz attack as an 'ambush'.

[Abby Normal]

Who said I’d provided a direct FBI quotation? Not me, that’s for sure. I paraphrased the definition of the blitz attack as accepted within the criminological paradigm. The FBI definition states that the blitz attack involves no precrime interaction between offender and victim.

No interaction.

This definition, however, was relaxed when it was recognized that on occasions an obvious blitz attacker might utter two or three words before launching an assault on a victim. If you’d actually read and absorbed what I’d written you’d recall that I qualified the definition with: ‘more often than not first contact is the attack’.

But you don’t read and you don’t absorb.


Again, you don’t read and you don’t absorb.


You don’t read and you don’t absorb.

I made no mention of The Definitive Story. None whatsoever. It’s you that keeps banging on about it as though it is the subject of this thread.

It isn’t.


Anybody got the number of the Samaritans?

Hi Garry
Jeff unfortunately also keeps conveniently leaving out the part where they say that the attack and murder takes place where the subject first encounters the victim. Something the ripper obviously didn't do.

[Garry Wroe]

Or Thirdly that Mr Hazelwood actually bothered to read the entirety of the FBi quote you provide and concluded that very little contact on the night was required by the killer… as is self evident in the word 'Little'

Who said I’d provided a direct FBI quotation? Not me, that’s for sure. I paraphrased the definition of the blitz attack as accepted within the criminological paradigm. The FBI definition states that the blitz attack involves no precrime interaction between offender and victim.

No interaction.

This definition, however, was relaxed when it was recognized that on occasions an obvious blitz attacker might utter two or three words before launching an assault on a victim. If you’d actually read and absorbed what I’d written you’d recall that I qualified the definition with: ‘more often than not first contact is the attack’.

But you don’t read and you don’t absorb.

I'm not really interested in the samantic's of what you believe something says, however I think it in poor taste that you criticise Hazelwood when clearly its your own observation that is in error.

Again, you don’t read and you don’t absorb.

The Definitive Story does not contain a scene with Kate endows in the Ten Bells …

You don’t read and you don’t absorb.

I made no mention of The Definitive Story. None whatsoever. It’s you that keeps banging on about it as though it is the subject of this thread.

It isn’t.

I suggest you do your research properly. And actually read carefully the information you claim supports your point of view.

Anybody got the number of the Samaritans?

[John G]

Hello Jeff,

The basis on which serial killers are categorized as organized or disorganized derives from the research of Hazlewood and Douglas (1980). However, this study, although pioneering, has been much criticised, not least for its relatively small sample size.

Canter et al (2004) http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/8639/1/CanterOrganised.pdf undertook a detailed analysis of the model, with a conclusion that, "These results throw considerable doubt on the utility of this dichotomy in any academic considerations. The taxonomy proposed in the Crime Classification Manual as a naturally occurring distinction between serial sexual murderers or their crime scenes does not garner even the weakest support from the data gathered here." (ibid, 32).

Instead, Canter's research found no distinction between the two types of serial murder, and that Hazlewood's research therefore lacked "empirical validity." In fact the conclusion was that all such crimes will have organized elements to them, and the differences may be the different ways in which they may show the disorganized aspects of crimes: "The results demonstrate that instead of being a basis for distinguishing between serial killings all such crimes will have a recognizable Organized quality to them as might be postulated from the very definition of a series of vicious crimes in which the offender was not detected until he had carried out a number of the offences. Rather then being one subtype of serial killer, being organized is typical of serial killers as a whole." (ibid, 32).

The fact is that the Hazlewood study is now 35 years old and, in the intervening period, criminology, like life in general, has moved on. Time, methinks, to start consulting different, more up to date, experts- may I suggest David Canter!