a theory on the Stride murder

[Hunter]

I have the Douglas book and he does not discount Stride as a Ripper victim. In fact, in discussing Stride's murder he goes into the comparison of a killer's MO and his signature. The MO of course being his choice of victims and method of dispatching them. The signature, in the Ripper's case was the mutilations. He adheres to the theory that the murderer was interrupted; thus the MO was the same but he was not able to post his signature.
That was Douglas' opinion on Stride, for whatever its worth.

[Adam Went]

Jon:

Well if you're going to believe all the original evidence from the medics then you already have a dilemma and must be confused, because they quite often contradicted each other as well. You don't have to look very far to see that.

Tom:

If someone corrects an error of yours he's automatically playing "I got him" games? That's a rather defensive stance. Incidentally, I did read your entire post before responding, and nowhere in your post did you mention that the 'Pipeman was known' theory originated with Begg, which was the question; instead you again cited that news report which was not the genesis of the theory.

No, you're right, nor did I claim that the news article was specifically referring to Pipeman being the one that was arrested. However, it could have been, particularly since the comment about this bloke being arrested comes directly after Schwartz's description of Pipeman in the article. No way of being able to tell for sure - but just for you Tom, we'll give the credit to Paul Begg.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Also, I understand that he was actually hired by the Ramseys which perhaps calls his objectivity into question on that case.

In fairness to Douglas, he did meet them first and satisfied himself to their innocence before going under their employ. At least that's how I understand it.

Anyway, I don't understand what you mean about Dan Brown. He dares to speak the truth where others doubt. My cigarette lighter just ran out and if the masons aren't to blame, I'm a Dutchman.

LOL. You had me going for a second until I read the last sentence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Steven Russell]

Douglas

Hello, Tom, and thanks for the info.

You are right in that his ideas on the Ripper are not particularly revelatory. He likes Cohen "or someone very much like him". He does quote Martin Fido a lot and I found myself wondering if Douglas had prepared his profile from the raw data or read the Fido and Rumbelow books first before he formed his opinion. I feel that this is a very important question.

Also, I understand that he was actually hired by the Ramseys which perhaps calls his objectivity into question on that case.

All that aside, he is, thankfully, much more au fait with violent crime than me so I feel compelled to give his opinions some respect.

Anyway, I don't understand what you mean about Dan Brown. He dares to speak the truth where others doubt. My cigarette lighter just ran out and if the masons aren't to blame, I'm a Dutchman.

Yours,

Kees van der Waals.

[Tom_Wescott]

P.S. I do not insist that Mr. Douglas be considered infallible - far from it. But nor do I feel his ideas should be rubbished out of hand.

I haven't read Douglas in many years, so perhaps you can help me here, but I don't remember him offering any insights into the Ripper case that were particularly new or revelatory. I'm not 'rubbishing his ideas out', but an idea either rises or falls on its own merits, not because a guy has a title or a best-selling book. I do recall that his write-up on Lizzie Borden was excellent.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

2) "Serial killer profiling at this stage is virtually useless" seems a rather bold statement. Why do you believe that this is the case?

To date not not a single 'Serial Killer Task Force' captured their killer. At best the killer was captured many years after the task force disbanded, at worst an innocent man was charged and/or convicted, or no arrest was ever made. Profiling has a very, very low success rate when it comes specifically to serial killers.

3) If Douglas's track record was so poor, why did he remain in employment for so many years, and why was he paid by foreign police forces (inc. UK) to give lecture tours etc?

Douglas' track record overall is great, but it's very poor when it comes to the cases that actually made him famous. He was fortunate enough to publish books that sold millions. His popularity doesn't make him any more of a successful serial killer hunter than Dan Brown's popularity makes him an excellent historian. Trevor Marriott is paid for his Ripper lectures, if that says anything.

4) If he was "truly gifted at catching rapists...", why should these gifts be regarded as non-transferrable when it comes to murderers?

We're not talking 'murderers', we're talking serial killers. Totally different animal, and you'd have to ask Douglas that questions. What I've posted here is a matter of historical fact. His profiles for GRK and his estimate of the Ramsey's, as well as the controversy surrounding the Atlanta Child Murder case, are a matter of public record and easy to research, but you certainly won't find this information between the covers of a John Douglas book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I mentioned Canter simply to illustrate that all of the well-known 'profilers' seem to miss the mark when it comes to the Ripper case.

[Steven Russell]

Douglas

Dear Tom,

Thank you for your thoughts. With respect, a few things puzzle me, viz:

1) Isn't David Canter's speciality geographical rather than psychological profiling and therefore of very limited use in the debate of whether or not Stride was a Ripper victim?

2) "Serial killer profiling at this stage is virtually useless" seems a rather bold statement. Why do you believe that this is the case?

3) If Douglas's track record was so poor, why did he remain in employment for so many years, and why was he paid by foreign police forces (inc. UK) to give lecture tours etc?

4) If he was "truly gifted at catching rapists...", why should these gifts be regarded as non-transferrable when it comes to murderers?

Best wishes,

Steve.

P.S. I do not insist that Mr. Douglas be considered infallible - far from it. But nor do I feel his ideas should be rubbished out of hand.

[Tom_Wescott]

John Douglas

Hi Steven,

Douglas is more qualified in victimology than in serial killer profiling, although I don't think it should take an FBI profiler to conclude that Stride was a Ripper victim. However, serial killer profiling at this stage is virtually useless. David Canter is truly a joke in this regard and Douglas isn't much better. A quick look at his track record shows us that his profile of the Atlanta Child Murderer almost certainly put an innocent man behind bars and his profile of the Green River Killer - which struck Ridgway from the suspect list - earned the killer an extra 20+ years of freedom. Although the evidence in the Jonbenet Ramsey case makes it painfully clear it was an 'inside job', Douglas concluded after one meeting with the Ramsey that it absolutely could not have been them. He places his instincts above the evidence, and while he is truly gifted at catching rapists and thieves, there is simply not enough data on serial killers for anyone to be an 'expert' serial killer profiler, and that includes Douglas.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Steven Russell]

John Douglas's opinion

Dear all,
I have just re-read Mr. Douglas's take on JTR in The Cases That Haunt Us. He seems to be in little doubt that Stride was a victim of the same killer as Eddowes. Now, given that his knowledge of the case is nowhere as profound as that of many members of this forum, and that he appears to rely heavily upon Martin Fido and Don Rumbelow, surely the man's vast experience of serial killers and their methods / motivations means that his views deserve to be taken seriously. Although profiling is not an exact science, and Mr. Douglas's writings can seem a little self-congratulatory at times, I feel that his opinions should not be dismissed lightly given his undoubted pedigree.

Any thoughts?

Steve.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yep, it would appear I'm stuck between a rut and a jagged stone.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

I think I see a steel cage death match in the making.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

You keep changing the goal posts you tell me to go read the inquest reports which you suggest corroborate your theory, when i do and come back showing the flaws in what you preach, you come out with another lame brain statement.

WRONG!! Don`t give me that rubbish about neck lying over jagged stones. Where the did you get that one from?
Get your facts right, her neck was lying over a carriage wheel rut.

And then of course there's Adam telling me I'm wrong about everything else. While I relish in having my mistakes corrected and learning something new, I can't honestly recall having made any errors on this thread and having been corrected by any of you, though from your tones that seems to be the goal. Trevor simply can't see the forest for the trees and we all know that, so I won't bother too much with him. Jon seems to want his giant carriage wheel rut, and takes the fascinating stance that the circumstances surrounding Stride's murder were identical to that of the other four victims, and yet doesn't see this as indicator that Stride was killed by the same man. He doesn't want to hear what I have to say or why I say the things I do, so that's cool.

I'm glad Adam has a sober and open mind regarding the evidence, even if he does put a little too much faith in non-contemporaneous second and third-hand sources. I hope he sticks around and keeps fighting it out. We might just hit paydirt!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Actually, if you had bothered to read my entire post, rather than just that section and then rush to press the reply button thinking "Oh sweet, I've got him now!", you would see that I said exactly that further down. Infact, let me quote myself....

If someone corrects an error of yours he's automatically playing "I got him" games? That's a rather defensive stance. Incidentally, I did read your entire post before responding, and nowhere in your post did you mention that the 'Pipeman was known' theory originated with Begg, which was the question; instead you again cited that news report which was not the genesis of the theory.

If you know where they are, why don`t you have a look Tom? Although, from what I`ve seen of your "theory" I don`t think it will be happy reading.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. If I know where what is? And what "theory" of mine are you referring that will not make 'happy reading'? You quoted a joke I made to Trevor that seems to have no bearing on your response.

WRONG!! Don`t give me that rubbish about neck lying over jagged stones. Where the did you get that one from?
Get your facts right, her neck was lying over a carriage wheel rut. Her neck was raised.

I stand corrected. I guess it's back to the drawing board for me. You should write a book, Jon.

Why? Her neck was already raised off the ground lying over the rut.

Wow, that's one wide, deep rut!

It`s you who is repeating the mistakes.

It's my good fortune that I have you here to set me on the right track. Shame all your posts are edited. I love to see the uncensored versions!


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

That you would take what he says at face value to be gospel without taking this into consideration is interesting though....

Oh, I have taken them into consideration. But, for now, I standby the medics statements and opinions, (over other modern commentators !!) as they are qualified and were present at the crime scene.

[Adam Went]

Jon:

You consider your opinion has more relevance than Phillips?

Ignoring that silly question, you don't have to look very far in the case to see that Phillips was wrong more than once. He gave the wrong time of death for Annie Chapman - infact, he was quite a long way out. He gave the wrong time of death for Liz Stride (more forgiveable as he was the second doctor on the scene and he was only a matter of minutes out). And then he makes his comments about the likelihood of Eddowes being a victim of the same killer. That's three examples out of three murders in a row, what more do you need to be able to say that Dr. Phillips, good doctor though he was, was only human and prone to making mistakes like anybody else, and therefore must have his statements taken with a grain of salt - also, just like everybody else?

That you would take what he says at face value to be gospel without taking this into consideration is interesting though....

Cheers,
Adam.