Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Patterns formed by murder locations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    You realize I was totally kidding, right?
    Originally posted by curious4 View Post
    I think you are unwise to reject Swedish research because it doesn`t agree with your own experience - your ideas seem rather out of date.
    I don't reject the Swedish research. I reject your application of it to the Ripper letters.
    Puttting dyslexic pupils in a class of special needs children would be counter-effective, to say the least.
    The dyslexic students I worked with, and observed were not in self-contained classrooms with lower-functioning students.

    The way special ed. works in the US is that slightly below average to bright students with specific disabilities that cause them to need extra tutoring, or extra time can spend time in a resource room. In high school "Resource" is a class they're assigned to, and it's a little like study hall (a class period for prepping or working on the next day's homework), except students get a grade for resource, and don't get a grade for study hall.

    We have honors students in resource rooms. Some of them have minor hearing impairments, some of them have motor skills problems, some are dyslexic, some have Asperger's syndrome, some have ADD, some have chronic illnesses, and more than normal absences. Dyslexic students often take prepared portions of exams in resource, or they may have special exam prep. I remember one student who used to be able to study a list of vocabulary words that would be on an exam before he took it, but it was prepared in such a way that it didn't give away what the actual questions would be. A student with cerebral palsy might get a test given orally, if it's a Scan-tron multiple choice (fill in the circles) test, or he might be allow to type out answers on a keyboard.

    On a regular day, dyslexic students would get help, depending on the degree of help they needed, in various forms, such as having a teacher go over a reading assignment with them, or receive prepared notes from their classes for the day (some kids with severe dyslexia qualified for a notetaker, and they'd be assigned to the same section of a class, when one than one was taking that class, so an aide could take notes, type them up, and photocopy them). Hearing impaired students would get notetakers as well.

    In the earlier grades, a resource room was where a child with dyslexia would go just for his reading instruction, which was usually 1-1 or 1-2 teacher-student, and return to the regular classroom for the rest of the day. Depending on his individual plan, he might return to the resource teacher for extra tutoring after school, or during a reading-based class period like "social studies," but was otherwise just a regular student.

    That's what I'm talking about, when I'm talking about dyslexic students in special ed. Now, there are also private schools just for students with dyslexia, but parents pay out of pocket for those, unless they can get their health insurance to pay for them.

    We don't put bright students with specific learning disabilities, or physical disabilities in the self-contained classrooms with severely retarded kids. And we don't put those kids in with kids with behavior disturbances. (And no, "behavior disturbances" is not a euphemism for autism. In my experience, autistic kids who have never been institutionalized don't exhibit violent or disturbed behavior, unless they also have some other problem as well, like ODD, or ADHD, or have been in a lot of foster homes, or abused, although, then they do show them in spades, because they can't talk about what has happened to them, or the frustrations they're experiencing.)

    Comment


    • #32
      this, that, followed by other

      Hello Christer. Thanks.

      "I canīt even think of any Eastender who had a reason to BE at all the murder spots at the approximate times of the killings - but for one man."

      Well, how many Eastenders do you know?

      "I canīt think of any suspect that was in very close physical contact with any of the victims - but for one man."

      You mean Paul? He was close to Polly. A few yards? Hutch, Bowyer, etc.

      "Nor can I think of any suspect that used a phony name when speaking to the police about the killings - but for one man."

      Phony name? I give. Quien?

      "Come to think of it, I canīt think of any suspect either, that was implicated as having lied about his actions on the murder night by a PC connected to the case - but for one man."

      Who implicated him for a lie?

      "And fascinatingly, its actually the same man in every instance."

      Sorry, but I do not share the fascination.

      "Which is why I think that looking for "patterns" in the murder spots may be as useless at it is entertaining."

      Ah! Now we agree.

      "Looking for a comfort zone applicable on a man that is surrounded by anomalies, double identities and quite possibly a tailormade lie to get him through the police net on the murder night is much more my cup of tea."

      Might be mine--if I watched CSI. I don't.

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • #33
        ruling in and out

        Hello Raven. Thanks.

        "LC if no suspect can be physically placed at all five crime scenes (and recall that I think six, adding Martha Tabram), can any be proven not at all crime scenes? Well, Prince Eddy for one."

        A few others. Cream and Deeming.

        "Your "multiple murderers" stance is interesting and very possibly correct, but I don't think we can completely rule out one lone knife man!"

        Can't disagree.

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • #34
          Lynn:

          "Well, how many Eastenders do you know?"

          Quite a few, actually - but none of them were around in 1888. But only the fewest of those who WERE would have had reason to travel along the routes were the Whitechapel killer(s) - just for you, Lynn - struck, and at the approximate times he (ooops!) did so.

          "You mean Paul? He was close to Polly. A few yards? Hutch, Bowyer, etc."

          Nope - guess again!

          "Who implicated him for a lie?"

          Mizen did. In advance, even, and unwittingly. But the only way we can believe Mizen, is by misbelieving Lechmere.

          "Might be mine--if I watched CSI. I don't."

          Good! Then you can spare the time to study Canter, Rossmo and some other authorities, who have noticed that serial killers often have a propensity to kill along their own beaten tracks. CSI is fiction, serial killers are a reality.

          Stay well!
          Fisherman

          Comment


          • #35
            authorities

            Hello Christer. Thanks.

            "Quite a few, actually - but none of them were around in 1888. But only the fewest of those who WERE would have had reason to travel along the routes were the Whitechapel killer(s) - just for you, Lynn - struck, and at the approximate times he (ooops!) did so."

            Thanks for pluralising!

            "Nope - guess again!"

            Druitt? Six miles out. Kosminski? Can't say. Tumblety? At his snake oil shop.

            "Mizen did. In advance, even, and unwittingly. But the only way we can believe Mizen, is by misbelieving Lechmere."

            Implicate, unwittingly??

            "Good! Then you can spare the time to study Canter, Rossmo and some other authorities, who have noticed that serial killers often have a propensity to kill along their own beaten tracks. CSI is fiction, serial killers are a reality."

            Don't know any serial killers. Hope I NEVER do. But perhaps they kill along a beaten track--except for those who don't? (heh-heh)

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • #36
              Lynn:

              "Druitt? Six miles out. Kosminski? Can't say. Tumblety? At his snake oil shop."

              Nnnn.....ope! Come again.

              "Implicate, unwittingly??"

              Yes. Implicate, unwittingly. What he claimed meant - if correct - that Lechmere could not have been telling the truth. And if you claim something that means that another person must have been lying, then you implicate him as a liar. If it happens in advance (as in this case) or afterwards is of little interest.
              It is the same, more or less, as splitting up a pair of villains to interrogate them one by one. No matter in which order this happens, both can say something that will make the other one look like a liar.
              I think you get my drift, Lynn. In fact, Iīm sure you do.

              "Don't know any serial killers."

              You donīt THINK you do, Lynn.

              "But perhaps they kill along a beaten track--except for those who don't? "

              Iīm sure thatīs true, Lynn. Just as I am sure that a majority of them have - historically - looked for prey along routes that can be logically tied to them. Some have done so in their neighbourhood, like Nielsen and Shawcross, others have used other comfort zones than close to home areas, like Carpenter, Hansen, Bittaker and Norris, where they have felt familiar. Some have travelled long stretches to kill, avoiding to leave the authorities the opportunity to work with an easily recognizable base area.
              But the Ripper, no matter who he was, killed in such a small zone that the suggestion that he regarded it a comfort zone becomes very hard to look away from.

              Cheers, Lynn.
              Fisherman
              Last edited by Fisherman; 09-23-2012, 07:28 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                19th c mind

                Hello Christer. Thanks.

                “Nnnn.....ope! Come again.”

                Very well. Klosowski? A mere lad. Kelly? Maybe in London; maybe not. Bury? Oh, please.

                “I think you get my drift, Lynn. In fact, Iīm sure you do.”

                As you have said, however, there could be an innocuous interpretation here.

                “You donīt THINK you do, Lynn. “

                Indeed. I may know serial killers who never kill. Those are the best kind, I should think.

                “Iīm sure thatīs true, Lynn. Just as I am sure that a majority of them have - historically - looked for prey along routes that can be logically tied to them. Some have done so in their neighbourhood, like Nielsen and Shawcross, others have used other comfort zones than close to home areas, like Carpenter, Hansen, Bittaker and Norris, where they have felt familiar. Some have travelled long stretches to kill, avoiding to leave the authorities the opportunity to work with an easily recognizable base area.
                But the Ripper, no matter who he was, killed in such a small zone that the suggestion that he regarded it a comfort zone becomes very hard to look away from.”

                Well, I have to hand it to you. You know a good bit about 20th & 21st c serial killers. I don’t and could not care any less. You see, I have a 19th c mind and I must think a certain way. Now, in which century did this “ripper” chap live? (heh-heh)

                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                  Might be mine--if I watched CSI. I don't.

                  Cheers.
                  LC
                  You should. It's hilarious. The genius scientists can't even do CPR properly. Once, a person being questioned (because CSIs question suspects) started having a seizure, and fell off his chair, and without checking his pulse or respiration, or noting that he had vomited, the CSI began CPR. Then another CSI jumped in and felt the guy's wrist and said "He has a pulse."

                  My husband said "Yeah, and it's exactly in rhythm with your chest thrusts. What an amazing coincidence."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    rot

                    Hello Rivkah. Thanks. I saw a few minutes once. Some lass was applying nail varnish. She got a telephone call, pushed some buttons on a computer and it was case closed.

                    What rot!

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Try Criminal Minds. At least they actually studied profiling techniques before writing the show, and had a former FBI Profiler as a consultant. Also they reference known serial killers all the time.

                      But back to JtR and his Kill Zone. The murder in Mitre Square stands out as being outside the comfort zone, if we hold to a single killer. If multiple murderers were involved who can say? Some might have simply killed the one person they wanted dead, used the other murders for a pattern, and copycatted. Without first taking the stance that one "lone knifeman" was responsible for all the crimes, no pattern of comfort zone applies.

                      But if we knew all the answers there would be nothing to discuss!
                      And the questions always linger, no real answer in sight

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        closer look

                        Hello Raven. Thanks. I appreciate how you pass from serial killers "back" to "JTR." Well done!

                        "The murder in Mitre Square stands out as being outside the comfort zone, if we hold to a single killer. If multiple murderers were involved who can say? Some might have simply killed the one person they wanted dead, used the other murders for a pattern, and copycatted."

                        Can't disagree here. At least, it merits a closer look.

                        Cheers.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Lynn:

                          "Very well. Klosowski? A mere lad. Kelly? Maybe in London; maybe not. Bury? Oh, please."

                          Not even close, Lynn. You can do better than that, Iīm sure.

                          "Well, I have to hand it to you. You know a good bit about 20th & 21st c serial killers. I don’t and could not care any less. You see, I have a 19th c mind and I must think a certain way. Now, in which century did this “ripper” chap live?"

                          There is a distinction, yes - at least I think so. But to my mind, it works the other way around; it is more likely today that a serial killer will obscure his tracks, than it was back in the 19:th century. And that owes a lot to media, I believe; if you go on printing that killing within a comfort zone will enable the police to tighten the net, then some will see the usefulness in taking their business away from their home shores.

                          But that did not apply in 1888.

                          All the best,
                          Fisherman

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Early Christmas

                            Hello Christer. Thanks.

                            "Not even close, Lynn. You can do better than that, Iīm sure."

                            Oh, alright. Mann? Hhmphf. Hutchinson? Suspicious behaviour and a name change? Not good enough.

                            "There is a distinction, yes - at least I think so. But to my mind, it works the other way around; it is more likely today that a serial killer will obscure his tracks, than it was back in the 19:th century. And that owes a lot to media, I believe; if you go on printing that killing within a comfort zone will enable the police to tighten the net, then some will see the usefulness in taking their business away from their home shores.

                            But that did not apply in 1888."

                            Although you see any number of posters who believe precisely this of "Jack."

                            Jack? Bah, humbug!

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Lynn:

                              "Oh, alright. Mann? Hhmphf. Hutchinson? Suspicious behaviour and a name change? Not good enough."

                              Nope - I īd love to say that youīre closing in, but Iīm afraid I canīt.

                              "Although you see any number of posters who believe precisely this of "Jack.""

                              That he spread his killings in order to stay undetected...?

                              "Jack? Bah, humbug!"

                              Agreed - he would have been called Charles.

                              The best,
                              Fisherman

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Charles

                                Hello Christer. Thanks.

                                "Nope - I īd love to say that youīre closing in, but Iīm afraid I canīt."

                                Well, well. I've just about exhausted a short list of suspects. One of the very weakest was Hutch. He might be regarded as a suspect--given the confusion over his name (Topping), his odd behaviour and his proximity to the scene of one crime.

                                Should I also be looking for a similar weak suspect? (heh-heh)

                                "That he spread his killings in order to stay undetected...?"

                                No, that he moved outside the kill zone--whatever that was.

                                "Agreed - he would have been called Charles."

                                Indeed? I think Tom Wescott would agree with you on that. (heh-heh)

                                Cheers.
                                LC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X