Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?.

[John G]

Prosecutor - Did you poison your gf?
Accused - How could I? I'm a lust killer!

Old B: The multi-killer hypothesis is absurd, there's no precedent for it.
New B: Why shouldn't we accept the multi killer hypothesis? I mean, just because there's no precedent doesn't mean it should be rejected-there's no precedent for a sex murderer evolving into a slow poisoner-possibly because they have radically different personalities- but who's to say that can't happen either?

[John G]

Prosecutor - Did you poison your gf?
Accused - How could I? I'm a lust killer!

Ah, I see, we're back to inferential deduction. Have you worked out yet why, say, biology might ceases to have any validity as a science based upon the same reasoning, I.e. just because an outcome hasn't occurred in the known past doesn't mean it won't occur in the future?

[John G]

So I take it then the claim that the immutability of signature for a lust serial killer wasn't a specific claim at all and was a general claim about all serial killers?

If so, the examples stand. I think you derived a general principle from a single case study. Keppel on jtr

In addition this is why I said the paper was case specific and deriving general views on mo/signature from it a bad idea. We should reference the latest literature given additional data since 2005.

Except you haven't cited a single study, post 2005, that remotely supports your hypothesis. Keppel's study wasn't case specific as it invoked general principles of signature analysis.

Interesting to see that you no longer seem to be a fan of David Hume-perhaps for the same reason that Daniel Dennett has lost his earlier enthusiasm for Dr Parnia's research!

[Batman]

Prosecutor - Did you poison your gf?
Accused - How could I? I'm a lust killer!

[Batman]

So I take it then the claim that the immutability of signature for a lust serial killer wasn't a specific claim at all and was a general claim about all serial killers?

If so, the examples stand. I think you derived a general principle from a single case study. Keppel on jtr

In addition this is why I said the paper was case specific and deriving general views on mo/signature from it a bad idea. We should reference the latest literature given additional data since 2005.

[John G]

Inferential deduction

Your position is that lust killers don't become poisoners because we have no examples. You back this up by then saying that various journals on profiling say why. So its a constraint through profiling and lack of history.

I have given examples of non-lust serial killers whose signature changed in terms of how they killed someone. Poisoning, firearms, knives, strangulation etc. You reject them because they are not lust killers. However while this might be the historical rejection can you show that the limiter you have for serial killers not changing signature is only lust killer specific and not general, for all types, of serial killers from the papers you cited? If it is not limited to just lust killers and is general, then how do you account for all the serial killers whose changed signature?

Is it possible, that 2005 Keppel paper you are using is case specific and itself needs to reference earlier papers on MO/Signature? That when we reference general papers on MO/Signature, that are modern do we find them warning that there is much more variation than previously thought. I think the latter. The idea there is a psychological block somewhere preventing it from happening, is odd. Or that they can't deliberately change. This is strangely a bit like biological determinism. Like its hard-wired (neurologically) and isn't a case of nature and nurture (which is what we generally accept today, a combination of both).

You seem to be invoking Hume's theory of inferential deduction. Thus, your reasoning appears to be that you can't use the past as a means of determining the future as things might change. So, just because there's never been a recorded case of a sex killer/mutilator evolving into a poisoner doesn't mean it can't happen as no causal link has been established.

Great, but can you think why a "hard" science like, say, biology, might also be in trouble based upon this kind of reasoning?

[Batman]

Your position is that lust killers don't become poisoners because we have no examples. You back this up by then saying that various journals on profiling say why. So its a constraint through profiling and lack of history.

I have given examples of non-lust serial killers whose signature changed in terms of how they killed someone. Poisoning, firearms, knives, strangulation etc. You reject them because they are not lust killers. However while this might be the historical rejection can you show that the limiter you have for serial killers not changing signature is only lust killer specific and not general, for all types, of serial killers from the papers you cited? If it is not limited to just lust killers and is general, then how do you account for all the serial killers whose changed signature?

Is it possible, that 2005 Keppel paper you are using is case specific and itself needs to reference earlier papers on MO/Signature? That when we reference general papers on MO/Signature, that are modern do we find them warning that there is much more variation than previously thought. I think the latter. The idea there is a psychological block somewhere preventing it from happening, is odd. Or that they can't deliberately change. This is strangely a bit like biological determinism. Like its hard-wired (neurologically) and isn't a case of nature and nurture (which is what we generally accept today, a combination of both).

[John G]

edit

Of course, in post 321 I meant to write Muncheasans Syndrome by proxy.

[John G]

I don't read Keppel as you have done because the paper you are talking about is a case specific paper not a general paper about MO/signature. I agree with Keppel and don't see the conflict you are raising.

You're limiting factor is that we have no examples of lust killers who specifically went on to use poison but we have ample examples of other signature changes. We also know lust killers can pause and commit other crimes. Poisoning is next to impossible to hide, even in the late 19th century. Plus you omit the possibility of deliberate signature changes despite evidence through confessions of this happening.

As for Shipman, how many did he kill in Yorkshire before Hyde, Manchester?

How do you remotely agree with Keppel? Quote: "While MO can change over time and reflect the nature of the crime, signature characteristics remain stable and reflect the nature of the offender. Although an offender's signature may evolve, the core features remain stable." (Keppel, 2005) These comments are clearly meant to be of general application, i.e not case specific! Of course, as I have explained to you several times now this is precisely what Schlesinger concluded, although when referring to an evolving signature the phrase used was "behaviourally and thematically consistent."

[John G]

Firearms and poison.
Laurie Dann

Not a lust killer like Kuklinski but poison is a tool they can use.

Btw, where did you get that the immutability of signature is only specific to lust killers exactly? Quote pls. Thanks.

Kuklinski was a hit man! I have already explained to you about the concept of signature. Signature ritualistic behaviour is the serial killers calling card and does not change dramatically: Hazlewood and Warren, 1995. This is supported by Schlesinger, 2010 who found that although such rituals are not identical at every crime scene-it would be odd if they were-they remain "behaviourally and thematically consistent."

Moreover, according to Helena, Chapman wasn't a sex/lust killer but was suffering from muncheasans disease by proxy!

[Batman]

Firearms and poison.
Laurie Dann

Not a lust killer like Kuklinski but poison is a tool they can use.

Btw, where did you get that the immutability of signature is only specific to lust killers exactly? Quote pls. Thanks.

[Batman]

I don't read Keppel as you have done because the paper you are talking about is a case specific paper not a general paper about MO/signature. I agree with Keppel and don't see the conflict you are raising.

You're limiting factor is that we have no examples of lust killers who specifically went on to use poison but we have ample examples of other signature changes. We also know lust killers can pause and commit other crimes. Poisoning is next to impossible to hide, even in the late 19th century. Plus you omit the possibility of deliberate signature changes despite evidence through confessions of this happening.

As for Shipman, how many did he kill in Yorkshire before Hyde, Manchester?

[John G]

No its not impossible. Far from it. DNA linking for example. Now thats a science.

As you can plainly see Keyes left a string of crimes that dont appear connected.

I think your view is too tight, raises a barrier that isnt there and omits other tools at the investigators disposal.

This clone/carbon copy of each crime is too stringent an interpretation.

Hi Batman,

Yes, I should have said that linking crimes based on signature analysis would be useless. Interesting to see you've abandoned Keppel- I'm sure Lynn will be delighted! There is still no example of a violent killer, let alone a sex killer, evolving into a slow poisoner. However, I have given you an example of a sex killer operating in the same area as a prolific poisoner during the same period.

[Batman]

According to your unique hypothesis! As I've explained to you numerous times if signatures varied linking crimes would be impossible, signature analysis would be useless and Keppel would be looking for another job!

No its not impossible. Far from it. DNA linking for example. Now thats a science.

As you can plainly see Keyes left a string of crimes that dont appear connected.

I think your view is too tight, raises a barrier that isnt there and omits other tools at the investigators disposal.

This clone/carbon copy of each crime is too stringent an interpretation.

[John G]

The reason Chapman denied being Klosowski could be that he wanted to pretend he had no medical knowledge (e.g. of poisons).

John: "Harold Shipman was living and working in West Yorkshire during the same period that Sutcliffe was active in the same area" GOOD POINT!


Helena

Thanks Helena.