Batman: I probably think this is more of a testimony as to how profiling isn't a science but very subjective.
It is based on statistical truths, so in that sense, it has itīs ground in science. The problem that tags along is that not all people will live by the statistical truths.
It doesn't have much baring on a double event anyway as you can claim both are achievable by disorganized/organized.
The whole concept of dividing killers up in an organized and a disorganized group is somewhat outdated, for that exact reason. It has itīs advantages and itīs limitations, just like profiling does.
One issue I am having with the typology is that it lends itself very well to the assumption that the more risks a killer takes, the less organized he will be. That is simply not true. Taking risks is throwing caution to the wind, not necessarily organization, though. As I have been trying to point out, a mentally challenged killer does not kill in the open street because he has decided that the risk is worth taking. To such a killer, it is not a question of rationally weighing the risks, but instead a question of answering to completely different mechanisms than riskjudging. A not mentally challenged killer who kills in the street will be acutely aware of the risks - but wiling to take them. That tells us a lot about the character of such a man, and I for one would say that there is a near certainty that such a killer will be a psychopath.
I am much more interested in how the timing between events, distances and trajectories make it even more of a low probability that they are different killers. That probability is somewhere down near nil.
Iīm sorry, but you just lost me again. Are you talking about the so called double event (in which case I agree, although I do not see the probability of two different killers as being close to nil) or are you speaking of the Ripper murders versus the Torso murders (in which case I also agree, and where I find there is much more forensic reasons to identify the two as one and the same).
It is based on statistical truths, so in that sense, it has itīs ground in science. The problem that tags along is that not all people will live by the statistical truths.
It doesn't have much baring on a double event anyway as you can claim both are achievable by disorganized/organized.
The whole concept of dividing killers up in an organized and a disorganized group is somewhat outdated, for that exact reason. It has itīs advantages and itīs limitations, just like profiling does.
One issue I am having with the typology is that it lends itself very well to the assumption that the more risks a killer takes, the less organized he will be. That is simply not true. Taking risks is throwing caution to the wind, not necessarily organization, though. As I have been trying to point out, a mentally challenged killer does not kill in the open street because he has decided that the risk is worth taking. To such a killer, it is not a question of rationally weighing the risks, but instead a question of answering to completely different mechanisms than riskjudging. A not mentally challenged killer who kills in the street will be acutely aware of the risks - but wiling to take them. That tells us a lot about the character of such a man, and I for one would say that there is a near certainty that such a killer will be a psychopath.
I am much more interested in how the timing between events, distances and trajectories make it even more of a low probability that they are different killers. That probability is somewhere down near nil.
Iīm sorry, but you just lost me again. Are you talking about the so called double event (in which case I agree, although I do not see the probability of two different killers as being close to nil) or are you speaking of the Ripper murders versus the Torso murders (in which case I also agree, and where I find there is much more forensic reasons to identify the two as one and the same).
Comment