To diagnose a serial killer

[John G]

Hi John

I thought it was the police investigations into the Green Chain rapist and the Rachel Nickell murder that had those traits ;-)

Hi Jon,

Surprising really, considering they had the assistance of a brilliant profiler, Paul Britton, known as the "real cracker". Oh wait a minute....I've just remembered he identified an innocent man as the killer! And, of course, in his book, prior to Napper being caught, he stated that the Nickel and Bisset murders and Green Chain Rapes were unconnected!

[curious4]

Hello C4,

Yes, that link doesn't seem to work very well, only offering a brief transcript of the case. Just tried to post again, but it keeps directing to the wrong link!

Hello John

That's a shame but that 's the internet for you! At least I managed to get the gist of it.

Best wishes
C4

[Abby Normal]

Hello Pierre,

Yes, I had read the study you cite some time ago. My own feeling is that JtR had a anti-social personality disorder, I.e. he was a psychopath. Mind you, as 86.5 % of serial killers, according to the article, meet the criteria for psychopathy that's probably not a bad guess!

Research, involving a sample of 289 violent offenders, also suggests that psychopathy is not a mental illness but "an evolutionary strategy largely favouring the exploitation of non-relatives." See Krupp et al, 2012 :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22973244

However, I wouldn't rule out Kosminski, who it is argued was suffering from schizophrenia, which of course is a universally recognized mental illness, if only because of the precedent of Robert Napper, who in some ways resembles JtR, I.e. he had both disorganized and organized traits.

good post. Totally agree!

[Abby Normal]

one may not be able to "diagnose" the ripper.

However, one can look at the crime scene and what was done to the victims, analyze the evidence for possible signature and then compare to known, interviewed and diagnosed serial killers for similarities.

[Fisherman]

John G: Hello Pierre,

Yes, I had read the study you cite some time ago. My own feeling is that JtR had a anti-social personality disorder, I.e. he was a psychopath. Mind you, as 86.5 % of serial killers, according to the article, meet the criteria for psychopathy that's probably not a bad guess!

John, to suggest that the 86,5 per cent of the serialists who are psychopaths would somehow indicate that the Ripper was, is "circular reasoning". Ask Caz, she is an expert on it.

Research, involving a sample of 289 violent offenders, also suggests that psychopathy is not a mental illness but "an evolutionary strategy largely favouring the exploitation of non-relatives." See Krupp et al, 2012 :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22973244

Still circular.

However, I wouldn't rule out Kosminski, who it is argued was suffering from schizophrenia, which of course is a universally recognized mental illness, if only because of the precedent of Robert Napper, who in some ways resembles JtR, I.e. he had both disorganized and organized traits.

I would be rather disincled to accept a man like Kosminski as the Ripper on account of how people suffering psychotic episodes are more often than not anything but discreet.
That, though, does not mean that I rule him out entirely, mainly since Anderson pointed to him and since we do not know his exact diagnosis and how it affected him at the relevant time.

It is, though, interesting to see it argued that many people can kill under a psychosis in a manner that would be related to the way the Ripper victims were despatched. I mean, once we engage in reasoning that Kos HAD this disorder and killed on account of it, since we know that killing on account of such disorders may happen - are we not engaging in you-know-what then...?

All the best, John - you make some great points!

[Jon Guy]

Robert Napper, who in some ways resembles JtR, I.e. he had both disorganized and organized traits.

Hi John

I thought it was the police investigations into the Green Chain rapist and the Rachel Nickell murder that had those traits ;-)

[Fisherman]

Good post, Pierre. I too wonder how ripperologists think they can tell what was going on in the mind or brain of an unidentifiable Victorian killer, whether they have a suspect in mind or not.

It's nuts, isn't it?

Caz
X

Iīm sure you have someone in mind, Caz, and I am equally sure that someone is not me, since I do not think that anybody can now exactly what any unidentifiable killer had in mind, Victorian or not.

Sadly, this sort of thing is what you often accuse me of, so I guess there is no guarantee.

If we are specifically talking of serial killers - which we aere not, given you classification, but anyhow - then you may be interested to know that there have been several studies implicating reoccurring patterns when it comes to the minds of serial killers. So in that context, it is anything but nuts to suggest that the minds of these killers can be predicted to a degree, generally speaking.

Have a beautifully educative weekend!

[John G]

Hi,

I can understand that itīs tempting to think oneīs theory about a serial killer, whatever theory you have, could get support from theories of phychiatric disorders (PD).

Spontaineously it goes well with what people generally think about a serial killer. He must have some kind of psychiatric disorder, he must be insane.

Even in 1888 the thinking went along this line. Jack the Ripper had to be a "lunatic". Perhaps the murders even stopped because he was put away in an asylum. This type of idea was thus given an explanatory status.

But the thing is that itīs very hard to diagnose serial killers even when they are alive and are beeing tested for different PD:s.

Doing it with historical sources is impossible - they donīt test the killer, they only describe crime scenes or what witnesses have thought and said.

So why do ripperologists use this old and very irrelevant idea of the killer having to be insane, mad, a psychopath etc? Because it says nothing about the mental status of Jack the Ripper but it says a lot of what people would expect from a serial killer, would he ever be tested for having some type of PD.

So hereīs a list of possible diagnoses from a rather rescent bibliographical review (Full article: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbp/v28s2/en_04.pdf) Have a go at it and try to diagnose Jack the Ripper from the list!

You will probably find that you think he could have many diagnoses.

You will also probably find that some of the literature you have read about him about him reflects different aspects and traits in this list.


Classification

The ICD-10 describes eight types of specific PDs: paranoid,
schizoid, antisocial, emotionally unstable, histrionic,
anankastic, anxious, and dependent.

1) Paranoid PD is characterized by self-referential thinking:
a predominance of distrust, oversensitivity to setbacks, and
the perception of being constantly harmed by others.

2) Schizoid PD is predominated by detachment, a lack of
interest in social contact, affective withdrawal, difficulty in
feeling pleasure, and a tendency toward introspection.

3) Antisocial PD is characterized by indifference to the
feelings of others (which can lead the individual to adopt
cruel behavior), disdain for norms and obligations, a low
tolerance for frustration, and a low threshold for the
perpetration of violent acts.

4) Emotionally unstable PD is marked by impulsive and
unpredictable manifestations, presenting two subtypes:
impulsive and borderline. The impulsive subtype is
characterized by emotional instability and uncontrolled
impulses. The borderline subtype, in addition to emotional
instability, presents self-image perturbations (causing difficulty
in defining personal preferences) and a consequent feeling of
emptiness.

5) Histrionic PD is characterized by a prevalence of
egocentrism and a low tolerance for frustration, as well as
theatricality and superficiality. Individuals with histrionic PD
are ruled by the need to be the center of attention.

6) In anankastic PD, concern about details prevails, together
with rigidity and stubbornness. However, the repetitive and
intrusive thoughts seen in anankastic PD do not attain the
level of severity that would lead to a diagnosis of obsessivecompulsive disorder.

7) Anxious (or elusive) PD is predominated by oversensitivity to
criticism, persistent feelings of tension/apprehension, and a
tendency toward social withdrawal (due to insecurity regarding
social capacity, professional capacity, or both).

8) Dependent PD is characterized by behavioral deficit, lack of
determination and lack of initiative, as well as by an unstable
sense of purpose.

Regards Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Yes, I had read the study you cite some time ago. My own feeling is that JtR had a anti-social personality disorder, I.e. he was a psychopath. Mind you, as 86.5 % of serial killers, according to the article, meet the criteria for psychopathy that's probably not a bad guess!

Research, involving a sample of 289 violent offenders, also suggests that psychopathy is not a mental illness but "an evolutionary strategy largely favouring the exploitation of non-relatives." See Krupp et al, 2012 :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22973244

However, I wouldn't rule out Kosminski, who it is argued was suffering from schizophrenia, which of course is a universally recognized mental illness, if only because of the precedent of Robert Napper, who in some ways resembles JtR, I.e. he had both disorganized and organized traits.

[John G]

Hello John

Or perhaps "Serial killers may be mad (except under the law) but they're not stupid!" Couldn't get into your link but looked it up elsewhere and was particularly impressed by this:

"Whilst the sheer abnormality of the defendant’s actions themselves suggest some element of mental disorder, there was no reason to conclude that his claim that he had genuinely believed that he was acting under divine instruction to fulfil God’s will carried any greater conviction at the instant time than it had when rejected by the jury"

Considering the remark to his wife, it couldn't be better!

Hello C4,

Yes, that link doesn't seem to work very well, only offering a brief transcript of the case. Just tried to post again, but it keeps directing to the wrong link!

[caz]

Hi,

I can understand that itīs tempting to think oneīs theory about a serial killer, whatever theory you have, could get support from theories of phychiatric disorders (PD).

Spontaineously it goes well with what people generally think about a serial killer. He must have some kind of psychiatric disorder, he must be insane.

Even in 1888 the thinking went along this line. Jack the Ripper had to be a "lunatic". Perhaps the murders even stopped because he was put away in an asylum. This type of idea was thus given an explanatory status.

But the thing is that itīs very hard to diagnose serial killers even when they are alive and are beeing tested for different PD:s.

Doing it with historical sources is impossible - they donīt test the killer, they only describe crime scenes or what witnesses have thought and said.

So why do ripperologists use this old and very irrelevant idea of the killer having to be insane, mad, a psychopath etc? Because it says nothing about the mental status of Jack the Ripper but it says a lot of what people would expect from a serial killer, would he ever be tested for having some type of PD.

So hereīs a list of possible diagnoses from a rather rescent bibliographical review (Full article: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbp/v28s2/en_04.pdf) Have a go at it and try to diagnose Jack the Ripper from the list!

You will probably find that you think he could have many diagnoses.

You will also probably find that some of the literature you have read about him about him reflects different aspects and traits in this list...

Good post, Pierre. I too wonder how ripperologists think they can tell what was going on in the mind or brain of an unidentifiable Victorian killer, whether they have a suspect in mind or not.

It's nuts, isn't it?

Pierre, are you a psychiatrist, psychologist, or neurologist? I worked with disabled people for many years, and I'm here to tell you that lay people are not qualified to make diagnoses. Further, no qualified person would ever make a diagnosis of someone he had not met.

I don't know what's the matter with me lately, because I assumed that was pretty much Pierre's point.

Hi Pierre,

There are many methods for solving murder cases.

Trying to retrofit a psychiatric profile onto the Whitechapel murderer[s?] at this remove is not one of them.

What you should be investigating are all the various reasons why people want—even need—Jack the Ripper to have existed.

Again, I thought Pierre was making the same observation.

The only reason to categorize mental disorders is so that people may be treated with drugs or therapies, and these treatments often do not work and are always re-evaluated and adjusted. What that means is, categorization and labeling are incorrect and each case has to be treated differently. These labels also create stigmas that prevent most people from ever feeling part of a normal society. Too, similar "experts" lump people into racial and ethnic categories with similar results of social discomfort. Psychology is useful as an experiment in misunderstanding an individual's needs. It has no great application retrospectively to the Ripper case. Comparisons with modern serial killers throughout various decades are made invalid due to different criminologists and doctors with different theories evaluating different killers with different methods and from different upbringings with different air to breathe and different drinking water and different chemical dependencies and different environmental hazards. Any poster wishing to compare mental illnesses of today with what they think JTR was like has to contend with all those factors first and then...it is still only opinion.

Mike

And again.

PD = Personality Disorder. My fault.

Regards Pierre

Not really.

You were possibly born that way.

Gosh, DJA, I hope you don't think admitting to a mistake is a sign of a personality disorder, or most of us are in trouble.

Have an insanely happy weekend all.

Caz
X

[curious4]

Hello C4,

Incredibly the conclusions by the psychiatrists were entirely dependent on Sutcliffe telling the truth:" It was accepted by the psychiatrists that the diagnosis depended on the truthfulness of the defendants account of the divine visitations and its continuing influence over him during the relevant period." ( R v Coonan [formally Sutcliffe], 2011).http://www.criminallawandjustice.co....11-EWCA-Crim-5

In fact, he told his wife on a prison visit that if he could make people believe he was mad "he might only do ten years in a looney bin."

Perhaps we ought to start a new thread entitled, "Do serial killers occasionally tell lies!"

Hello John

Or perhaps "Serial killers may be mad (except under the law) but they're not stupid!" Couldn't get into your link but looked it up elsewhere and was particularly impressed by this:

"Whilst the sheer abnormality of the defendant’s actions themselves suggest some element of mental disorder, there was no reason to conclude that his claim that he had genuinely believed that he was acting under divine instruction to fulfil God’s will carried any greater conviction at the instant time than it had when rejected by the jury"

Considering the remark to his wife, it couldn't be better!

[John G]

Hello John and GUT

Good thing they did in the Sutcliffe trial, or some psychiatrist or another would be certifying him cured eventually! I suspect the jury was nudged in that direction by the judge?

Talking of Barons, and the possibilty of of Jack being "one of the highest in the land" got me thinking of Dorothy Sayer's book "Clouds of Witnesses" (I think), in which the fictitous Duke of Denver is accused of murder and is to be tried by a jury of his peers, who were, of course, Peers. I believe she researched her books thoroughly and had gone in to all the details. If this applied in the 1920s/30s, I presume it would have applied in the 1880s, that is if Ms Sayers didn't make it all up! So a trial with Upper Crust Jack, who probably wouldn't be able to plead insanity would have been quite an event. Possibly.

All good wishes
C4

Hello C4,

Incredibly the conclusions by the psychiatrists were entirely dependent on Sutcliffe telling the truth:" It was accepted by the psychiatrists that the diagnosis depended on the truthfulness of the defendants account of the divine visitations and its continuing influence over him during the relevant period." ( R v Coonan [formally Sutcliffe], 2011).http://www.criminallawandjustice.co....11-EWCA-Crim-5

In fact, he told his wife on a prison visit that if he could make people believe he was mad "he might only do ten years in a looney bin."

Perhaps we ought to start a new thread entitled, "Do serial killers occasionally tell lies!"

[curious4]

Hello John and GUT

Good thing they did in the Sutcliffe trial, or some psychiatrist or another would be certifying him cured eventually! I suspect the jury was nudged in that direction by the judge?

Talking of Barons, and the possibilty of of Jack being "one of the highest in the land" got me thinking of Dorothy Sayer's book "Clouds of Witnesses" (I think), in which the fictitous Duke of Denver is accused of murder and is to be tried by a jury of his peers, who were, of course, Peers. I believe she researched her books thoroughly and had gone in to all the details. If this applied in the 1920s/30s, I presume it would have applied in the 1880s, that is if Ms Sayers didn't make it all up! So a trial with Upper Crust Jack, who probably wouldn't be able to plead insanity would have been quite an event. Possibly.

All good wishes
C4

[John G]

Thanks John. Ooh uppercrust was he? If I ever get charged with anything I shall demand a Baron! Would he have previously been known as a Baronister :-)?

Best regards and thanks for your patience!
C4

No problem C4. Yes, a "Baron" must have been someone very important and regal! I'm sure it would have been an almost a pleasure to have been brought before him!

Regarding the likely outcome of a fitness to plead hearing. The decision, of course, would be made by the jury. I therefore wonder if, say, a Whitechapel jury were confronted by someone they believed to be the Ripper, they would be prepared to allow him to escape the hangmans noose, however deranged he may have appeared, by declaring him unfit to plead.

A modern comparator is the R v Sutcliffe case, where the jury , somewhat controversially, refused to allow Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, to use the diminished responsibility defence. This was despite the fact that the medical opinion was unanimous that he was schizophrenic!

[Robert St Devil]

Okay. No wit then.

He's can charm a prostitute because...?