Plausibility of Kosminski

[lynn cates]

shamans r us

Hello Michael.

"I think criminal profiling is as useful as psychiatric analysis and marriage counseling."

I entirely agree. I recall studying psychology in the 1980's. The big scandal (according to the text) was that the African tribal shaman enjoyed a success rate in treatment 1% above that experienced by trained psychotherapists.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

vast numbers

Hello (again) Tom.

"But the fact that the 'key points' of the standard profile fit literally every suspect put forth, from D'Onston to Druitt to the Kozmeister, should tell us a thing or two."

Yes. Not to mention vast numbers of East End LVP males in general.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

serial killing profile

Hello Tom.

"Serial killer profiling is a fad relic of the late 20th century"

Right you are. As also that bloody stupid "CSI" business (or whatever it is called).

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

givens

Hello Jonathan.

"The best description of the killer is of a young, Gentile-fearured man dressed as a proletarian, one seemingly putting an exhausted middle-aged woman off her guard with an easy manner."

Yes. Given, of course, that:

1. It was a Kate sighting and

2. That was her killer

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

To Tom

Yes, I meant to write profiling of serial killers.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, but the FBI are so woefully wrong in the profiles they create for modern serial killers, that they can only be hopelessly lost with JTR. Any one of us on this thread, maybe even Trevor, knows more about these crimes that Douglas, Hazelwood, and Canter combined. If the Green River Killer investigators had taken John Douglas' profiile and decided to look for a guy the exact OPPOSITE of what Douglas suggested, they might have caught their man 20 years earlier.

Serial killer profiling is a fad relic of the late 20th century.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Exactly excellent post Tom

[mariab]

profiling

They said he wouldn't maintain steady employment, wouldn't maintain a steady relationship, wouldn't be able to keep his vehicle clean, would be untidy in his habits, would live alone, would be of above average intelligence, and would not write a letter to police.
Ridgway kept the same job for like 20 years and was only late to work ONCE, had been married for as many years, kept his truck in great shape and running forever, his house was clean, he lived with his wife and children, was below average intelligence, and in fact wrote the letter to police that Douglas told them to ignore as a hoax.

I would honestly have to look into this more to give you a proper answer, but from the one source I have looked at so far, which lists 29 traits in the profile, it seems to me that 16 are accurate, 5 more are at least somewhat accurate, 4 are maybe or unknown, and 4 are inaccurate.

From what I recall, Ridgway was married at least twice or perhaps even thrice, during his marriage he stopped killing (possibly for both logistical AND emotional reasons), I also think he changed between different manual jobs, and I haven't heard that part about a letter from him written to the police. One of his wives has even written a book about the case.

Criminal profiling is a bunch of hocus pocus

I wouldn't go that far. Criminal profiling is based on a series of logical and pretty self-explanatory deductions:
- white male/black male: this was making sense until a few years ago, when races interacted socially in an essentially still “segregated“ fashion. Today, this adage doesn't hold anymore.
- age 25-55: Duh. Could have hardly been under 18 or older than 59.
- lives alone, has a garage or a cabin in the woods, and a truck-like vehicle: translates into obvious logistic possibilities.
- doesn't hold a job that pertains to a career: also duh. Had the perp taken the time to go to school for 10 years and obtain a Ph.D., or become a professional athlete or an artist or an environmental activist, he wouldn't have developped the frustrations which led him into serial killing.
- reads/collects violent pornography and forensic lit: self-explanatory.
- abused in childhood/parents alcoholics/bed wetting as an adult/early history of torturing animals/pyromania: pretty self-explanatory if one has the slightest notion in psychiatry.
And so on...

Here is a 'New Yorker' article you might want to check out debunking profiling, called 'Dangerous Minds' by Malcolm Gladwell:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2..._fact_gladwell

I'll read this if I have a minute.

[The Good Michael]

I think criminal profiling is as useful as psychiatric analysis and marriage counseling. Take that however you wish.


Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jonathan. I took time to read that article and found that it pretty well sums up the feelings I've had for many, many years regarding serial killer profiling.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Criminal profiling is a bunch of hocus pocus

Just to be clear, I'm specifically saying I'm not a fan of serial killer profiling. John Douglas has enjoyed great success with his profiles of serial rapists, burglars, and even one off criminals. I'm sure this is because there are mountains and mountains of data in which to study to build a stronger profile. There just isn't the kind of data with serial killers that they would need. For this reason, to date not one serial killer captured was was the result of a profile. Not one. Not one serial killer task force has succeeded. Not one. And yet we continuously turn to these men to bolster our theories. Personally, I would bet that Rob House could draw up a more accurate profile of the Ripper if he were to approach this case suspect-free than John Douglas could. Or Jonathan Hainsworth, or Monty. But the fact that the 'key points' of the standard profil fit literally every suspect put forth, from D'Onston to Druitt to the Kozmeister, should tell us a thing or two.

What I liked about Rob's book is that he studied the psychology behind schizophrenia and murder. Perhaps now we'll never have to hear that nonsense again that Kozminski couldn't have been the Ripper because, years later, he ate out of gutters.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Tom,

I would honestly have to look into this more to give you a proper answer, but from the one source I have looked at so far, which lists 29 traits in the profile, it seems to me that 16 are accurate, 5 more are at least somewhat accurate, 4 are maybe or unknown, and 4 are inaccurate.

Rob

[Jonathan H]

Hocus Pocus

To Tom

Yes, well said.

Criminal profiling is a bunch of hocus pocus, and to use it as evidence for the Jack the Ripper murders fraught with peril; the danger is that you will see what you want to see.

In terms of historical methodology it is much stronger that Macnaghten, arguably, chose a suspect against his own class, and his own professional biases.

Here is a 'New Yorker' article you might want to check out debunking profiling, called 'Dangerous Minds' by Malcolm Gladwell:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_gladwell

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Rob,

They said he wouldn't maintain steady employment, wouldn't maintain a steady relationship, wouldn't be able to keep his vehicle clean, would be untidy in his habits, would live alone, would be of above average intelligence, and would not write a letter to police.

Ridgway kept the same job for like 20 years and was only late to work ONCE, had been married for as many years, kept his truck in great shape and running forever, his house was clean, he lived with his wife and children, was below average intelligence, and in fact wrote the letter to police that Douglas told them to ignore as a hoax.

That's a pretty significant 30%!!!!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Furthermore... you seem to be saying the profile of the Green River Killer was inaccurate in terms of fitting Ridgeway. Are you sure about that? No profile will be 100% accurate. The FBI even clearly states that no single item in a profile should be used to eliminate suspects. There were some mistakes in the Grenn River Killer profile, but from what I have read, a large amount of it was quite accurate. Like about 70% or more. So if that is an example you are using to prove a point, I don't think it does that. In fact, it is a good example for discussion for that reason... it is not 100% accurate, but it is pretty accurate overall. Which is what a profile should be.

Rob

[robhouse]

Yes, but the FBI are so woefully wrong in the profiles they create for modern serial killers, that they can only be hopelessly lost with JTR. Any one of us on this thread, maybe even Trevor, knows more about these crimes that Douglas, Hazelwood, and Canter combined. If the Green River Killer investigators had taken John Douglas' profiile and decided to look for a guy the exact OPPOSITE of what Douglas suggested, they might have caught their man 20 years earlier.

I am aware that there is a tendency by people to dismiss the research and opinions of people like those at the BSU. Well, I don't agree with this Tom, and I say this respectfully. We have differing opinions. We are not talking about knowledge of the Ripper crimes, we are talking about a knowledge of serial killers in general. I personally do not feel that the Ripper is some kind of anomaly. I think that he was a serial killer like other modern serial killers. And there has been a lot of research into serial killers since the time of the Ripper murders. I think that research and the conclusions of some people might be wrong in certain instances, obviously. But I am not in agreement that "serial killer profiling is a fad relic of the late 20th century." I do realize that a lot of the people on these boards will probably agree with your side of the argument on this, but I really do not see how anyone on here can claim to be more knowledgeable about serial killers than professionals who have made a career out of studying the behavior of these people. Almost everyone on here profiles anyway. Whenever someone says this or that behavior fits with what we would expect of Jack the Ripper... well, that is profiling, is it not? In my opinion, it is entirely valid to look at other examples of a certain type of serial killer, and see if there are similarities with the Ripper.

I mean, for example... what do you do with the fact that certain statistics have been gathered about serial killers based on direct study of them? Do you throw that out too? In my opinion, it is valid to collect data on serial killer behavior and etiology, and to draw conclusions based on that data... including defining typologies and what not. Then if you have a suspect who fits that data, it is valid to draw tentative conclusions or speculations on such data. The fact that profiling is sometimes wrong is not a sufficient reason to conclude that it is a fraud.

Rob