The Paris Torso Mystery

[Fisherman]

Clearly, we can now eliminate Aaron Kozminski from our inquiries. He wasn't in London in 1873 when the woman was found mutilated near Battersea Pier.

If the man who killed that victim was the same as the one who killed the Ripper and Thames Torso victims, that is the inescapable conclusion, yes. But it is not a proven thing, so you need not loose sleep over it. But this is how things work, actually: If somebody is not in the country when crime is committed, then he did not commit that crime. If that crime can be linked to other crimes as having the same originator, then the guy who was not in the country cannot have committed those crimes either.

Are you even aware of the reasons why I suggest we may have to link up the 1873 torso murder with the later ones - and the Ripper murders? It helps to read up.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Fish -- Setting aside your half-dozen cancelled posts, can you direct me to where Dr Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm concludes that the Rainham victim was murdered by the same hand that murdered Kate Eddowes?

If not, what is your point?

You might not like it, but a study in the United States concluded that "signature" was pseudo-science.

One of the foundations of science is that independent researchers will come up the same experimental results. Their conclusions can be verified and replicated by others.

Instead, the "profilers" taking part in the study could not even agree on the definition of "signature."

Worse yet, given access to actual crime scene evidence, the various respondents identified different behaviors as being the 'signature,' and suggested connections between crimes that were not, in fact, related.

Given a chance to prove their methods, they failed miserably---under test conditions.

The conclusion of the study is that 'signature' had no empirical support and was a pseudoscience.

There is no field of human study that has produced more bogus science than psychiatry and psychology.

Do you think the world's greatest scientists are studying serial killing? Do you think they might actually be drawn to DNA research, or cancer research, or astrophysics?

This is a fringe discipline, Christer. That is not a criticism--it's just a fact of life. As such, much of it is quackery and all of it has been understudied and still has one foot in Freudian psychology. Some of it is not quackery, but it is also not saying what you claim it is saying.

But I'd love to see you do the footwork and approach all of these folks with the medical reports for the Whitechapel Murders and for the Torso cases and see if they are as eager as you to claim they are all by the same hand.

RP

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why did not Peter Sutcliffe, Ted Bundy and Peter Kürten do all their crimes in the exact same way?

I think that is irrelevant.

It is not in dispute that the Whitechapel Murderer did not commit all his crimes in exactly the same way.

One of the Torso murders predated what are known as the Whitechapel murders.

Another occurred during the same period as the Whitechapel murders.

In none of the Whitechapel murders did the murderer take the victim to a bolt hole or use any transport.

It is quite obvious that these are two separate series of murders.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Assorted marketing/advertising/retail types in the United States will find it mildly amusing to hear that behavioural science is 'quackery'. Scratching their heads thinking "what?", as they watch boatloads of people buying useless things that they do not need and many a time with money they do not have.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish -- Setting aside your half-dozen cancelled posts, can you direct me to where Dr Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm concludes that the Rainham victim was murdered by the same hand that murdered Kate Eddowes?

If not, what is your point?

You might not like it, but a study in the United States concluded that "signature" was pseudo-science.

One of the foundations of science is that independent researchers will come up the same experimental results. Their conclusions can be verified and replicated by others.

Instead, the "profilers" taking part in the study could not even agree on the definition of "signature."

Worse yet, given access to actual crime scene evidence, the various respondents identified different behaviors as being the 'signature,' and suggested connections between crimes that were not, in fact, related.

Given a chance to prove their methods, they failed miserably---under test conditions.

The conclusion of the study is that 'signature' had no empirical support and was a pseudoscience.

There is no field of human study that has produced more bogus science than psychiatry and psychology.

Do you think the world's greatest scientists are studying serial killing? Do you think they might actually be drawn to DNA research, or cancer research, or astrophysics?

This is a fringe discipline, Christer. That is not a criticism--it's just a fact of life. As such, much of it is quackery and all of it has been understudied and still has one foot in Freudian psychology. Some of it is not quackery, but it is also not saying what you claim it is saying.

But I'd love to see you do the footwork and approach all of these folks with the medical reports for the Whitechapel Murders and for the Torso cases and see if they are as eager as you to claim they are all by the same hand.

RP

Oh, look - it's the poster who thinks psychology and psychiatry are not sciences again! Let's begin by advising him to type in "Is psychology a science?" and "Is psychiatry a science?" into his search engine and see what happens.

And what does he want to know? Well, he wants to know where Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm concludes that the Rainham victim was murdered by the same hand that murdered Kate Eddowes ...? As if somebody had suggested that?

Did anybody suggest it? I think not. I know I didn't.

But the poster who thinks psychology and psychiatry are not sciences has another question: If Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm did not conclude that the Rainham victim was killed by the man who slayed Eddowes, then what is the point of bringing her research up?

The point is of course that :

1. The SCIENTIFIC paper we speak of clarifies that aggressive dismemberment and aggressive mutilations are two branches on the same tree.

2. There were more victims in the Torso series than the Rainham one. And, not to forget, it may well be that the Rainham victim was mutilated. We cannot tell, but since we can tell that Jackson WAS mutilated, it is not only possible but also likely that the Rainham victim was too.

"There is no field of human study that has produced more bogus science than psychiatry and psychology", says the guy who thinks that psychology and psychiatry are not sciences. If it had been the case that we KNEW that ALL research done in the fields of psychology and psychiatry was "bogus", the guy who thinks that psychology and psychiatry are not sciences would have had some sort of a point. But the truth of the matter is that this is not so at all. Psychology and psychiatry have contributed to a very large degree to our knowledge of humanity, to a degree that Nobel prizes have been awarded to both categories of scientists. Although there is no such Nobel prize category (just like there is no category for mathematics, for example), psychological finds have been awarded nevertheless, in other disciplines like medicine/physiology for example.

Next, the guy who claims that psychology and psychiatry are no sciences, asks me if I think that the world's greatest scientists are studying serial murder. My honest answer is that I don't know. Nor does the guy who thinks psychology and psychiatry are not sciences, he just tries to imply that scientists who take an interest in the study of serial murder and other deviations of the human mind, are second class scientists.
And that is second class reasoning, not fit for any serious debate. Furthermore, it may be telling an ugly truth about people who take an interest in serial murder and set about posting about it on public forums. Like the guy who thinks that psychology and psychiatry are not sciences, for example.

Finally, the guy who thinks that psychology and psychiatry are not sciences invites me to "do the footwork" and show if the scientists think that the two murder series we study are really of the same hand. I don't have to do that, though, since we know from their paper that they say that aggressive mutilation and aggressive dismemberment are closely related. Ergo, they would be positive to the idea of a common originator.

However, what the guy who thinks that psychology and psychiatry are not sciences misses out on, is that HE is the one refuting the paper presented as likely quackery. He is the one who tarnishes the scientists who wrote the paper and leads on that it is crap. Therefore, if it lies on anybody to do the footwork, then it lies upon the guy who thinks that psychology and psychiatry are not sciences to do that footwork, and find out from the originators of the paper whether or not the suggestion of a common killer is as dumb as the guy who does not think psychology and psychiatry are sciences claims.

Me, I think the really dumb argument lies elsewhere.

[Fisherman]

I think that is irrelevant.

It is not in dispute that the Whitechapel Murderer did not commit all his crimes in exactly the same way.

One of the Torso murders predated what are known as the Whitechapel murders.

Another occurred during the same period as the Whitechapel murders.

In none of the Whitechapel murders did the murderer take the victim to a bolt hole or use any transport.

It is quite obvious that these are two separate series of murders.

Do you really think that there are no examples of serial killers who killed some victims inside their homes and others in the open streets? Read about Peter Sutcliffe, for example.

Do you really think that there are no examples of killers who transported some victims to their dumping sites , while killing others out of home? Read about Gary Ridgway, for example. He killed most victims in his home, and then he transported them to dumping sites. Others were killed in his car.

There is absolutely nothing that makes it "quite obvious" that these were two independent series of murders. Serial killers are opportunity killers to a large degree, and that alone smothers your argument effectively.

If the fact that some of the victims were likely killed inside and then dumped with the help of transport makes it impossible for that killer to kill in the open streets in your view, then how is it possible for both killers to cut from pubes to ribs, to eviscerate and carve out uteri, to kill prostitutes, to slit throats, to cut away abdominal walls, to be skilled cutters, to steal rings from their victims, and to work in the same area and time although there are no other examples of it in criminal history?

How is THAT explainable, while it is impossible that a killer can kill both in a bolthole and in the open streets?

Maybe you did not think it over very well. Or at all.

[rjpalmer]

Oh, look - it's the poster who thinks psychology and psychiatry are not sciences again!

Unfortunately for you, Christer, those who conducted one of these studies--the results of which suggested that "profiling" was largely a pseudoscience--also had PHDs in Psychology and Criminology, so your intended criticism falls flat.

I never suggested that all psychology was bogus; only that the fields is particular fertile grounds for the quack and the charlatan. There are good psychologists, such as the Candian folks below, all academics, who test theories using scientifically sound studies. Why that upsets you, I cannot say.

In the following study, the self-proclaimed "profilers" didn't perform any better than random people off the street when it came to predicting "offenders' cognitive processes, physical attributes, offense behaviors, or social habits and history."

How can that be if it is a legitimate discipline?

I recommend obtaining the article and reading it in full. It's quite provocative.


Taking Stock of Criminal Profiling: A Narrative Review and Meta-Analysis - Brent Snook, Joseph Eastwood, Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin, Richard M. Cullen, 2007 (sagepub.com)


All the very best!

[rjpalmer]

Let me also remind you, Christer, that among those who have studied the Whitechapel Murders, the psychiatrist with the most impressive curriculum vitae was Dr. David Abrahamson, a fellow Scandanavian. He served as a criminal psychopathologist at two major U.S. prisons (Juliot and Sing Sing) and taught, among other places, at the London School of Economics and Columbia University in New York--part of the Ivy League. There he worked at the New York State Psychiatic Institute. He is also well-known for his long sessions with David Berkowitz.

After long study, Dr. Abrahamson, this eminent psychiatrist, concluded that the Whitechapel Murders were committed by the homosexual tag-team of M.J. Druitt and J.K. Stephen.

Not a very happy augury for what was to come, I wouldn't think.

I'll stick with the coppers.

[Fisherman]

Unfortunately for you, Christer, those who conducted one of these studies--the results of which suggested that "profiling" was largely a pseudoscience--also had PHDs in Psychology and Criminology, so your intended criticism falls flat.

I never suggested that all psychology was bogus; only that the fields is particular fertile grounds for the quack and the charlatan. There are good psychologists, such as the Candian folks below, all academics, who test theories using scientifically sound studies. Why that upsets you, I cannot say.

In the following study, the self-proclaimed "profilers" didn't perform any better than random people off the street when it came to predicting "offenders' cognitive processes, physical attributes, offense behaviors, or social habits and history."

How can that be if it is a legitimate discipline?

I recommend obtaining the article and reading it in full. It's quite provocative.


Taking Stock of Criminal Profiling: A Narrative Review and Meta-Analysis - Brent Snook, Joseph Eastwood, Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin, Richard M. Cullen, 2007 (sagepub.com)


All the very best!

The Finnish article is not about criminal profiling, though. Speaking about falling flat on your nose.

Find somebody who criticizes or dismisses the paper, RJ, instead of leading on that it is quackery. Finding other works that quote the Finnish paper is easy.

That is because it is held high in regard in studies of this field. Then again, you have conclusively proven that scientists who study criminal behaviour are crap scientists. Or did I get that wrong?

[Fisherman]

Let me also remind you, Christer, that among those who have studied the Whitechapel Murders, the psychiatrist with the most impressive curriculum vitae was Dr. David Abrahamson, a fellow Scandanavian. He served as a criminal psychopathologist at two major U.S. prisons (Juliot and Sing Sing) and taught, among other places, at the London School of Economics and Columbia University in New York--part of the Ivy League. There he worked at the New York State Psychiatic Institute. He is also well-known for his long sessions with David Berkowitz.

After long study, Dr. Abrahamson, this eminent psychiatrist, concluded that the Whitechapel Murders were committed by the homosexual tag-team of M.J. Druitt and J.K. Stephen.

Not a very happy augury for what was to come, I wouldn't think.

I'll stick with the coppers.

So by way of this example, you are at liberty to dismiss the Finnish paper. How convenient! And so you!

[rjpalmer]

I'll have to get back to you in a few days, Christer. Stay tuned.

[Fisherman]

As it happens, the thrust of the article as given in my presentation should be totally uncontroversial: people who enjoy cutting into a human body cannot be told apart from those who dismember a body, if it cannot be proven that the dismemberment was purely a defensive act.
Why anybody would get his knickers in a twist over that us unfathomable. It reeks of psychology fobia.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How is THAT explainable, while it is impossible that a killer can kill both in a bolthole and in the open streets?

Maybe you did not think it over very well. Or at all.

I did not say that it is impossible.

In order for your argument to stand up, the same murderer used a bolt hole and transport and dumped body parts in Rainham and the Thames, and then about 14 months later committed two murders in Whitechapel in the street (including Tabram, as you do).

His next four murders were a murder in the backyard of Hanbury Street, another dismemberment with body parts being found in the Thames, and the double murder in Whitechapel and the City of London.

It does not add up.

Why is there a 14-month gap between the first two murders in your series?

Is it really that the murderer just happened to wait 14 months or is it that the two murders were committed by two different people with two different modes of operation?

[Fisherman]

I'll have to get back to you in a few days, Christer. Stay tuned.

So you have decided to do the footwork? Good!

[Fisherman]

I did not say that it is impossible.

In order for your argument to stand up, the same murderer used a bolt hole and transport and dumped body parts in Rainham and the Thames, and then about 14 months later committed two murders in Whitechapel in the street (including Tabram, as you do).

His next four murders were a murder in the backyard of Hanbury Street, another dismemberment with body parts being found in the Thames, and the double murder in Whitechapel and the City of London.

It does not add up.

Why is there a 14-month gap between the first two murders in your series?

Is it really that the murderer just happened to wait 14 months or is it that the two murders were committed by two different people with two different modes of operation?

You said that it was quite obvious that the two series were not connected. That is saying that it is impossible. If you have now changed your mind, that is very wise of you.

And always remember that when we are dealing with uncaught killers, we cannot establish 14 month gaps. We do not have all the facts - but we know that there are no given schedules for any serial killer.