Would he need to have a high I.Q to get away with these crimes in your opinion? and how clever would one have to be to realise whitechapel wasnt the best place to be if one had talent and ability ...and high intelligence?
and how clever would one have to be to realise whitechapel wasnt the best place to be if one had talent and ability
It's perfectly possible to hail from the lower classes, live in a rough area, work at a menial job, and still be endowed of above average intelligence. This would have held true especially for the LVP when class bounderies and prejudices were much harder to surmount than they are today.
Hate to say it, but this post is wrong in SO many ways.
The image of a high-IQ is VASTLY overrated. Lt. Ken Landwehr, who headed the team that captured BTK, commented that after his capture, it quickly became clear that Rader was both lucky and not very bright, rather than a criminal mastermind.
The list of serials who are similarly lacking in IQ is a long one, and those who are considered of high IQ may be the beneficiaries of good press, rather than actual high IQs. As Landwehr has said, all a person really needs to do is have no connection to the victim, be careful not to leave behind evidence, wipe stuff down and keep their mouth shut about what they've done and often they'll get away with it.
I have a direct quote on another thread, so I'm not going to copy that here.
Crime was a lot easier to get away with in Jack's time... they didn't even embrace fingerprinting yet... although photographing the eyes of victims was apparently all the rage... LOL.
So no, the nature of the crime is absolutely no indication of a high IQ, or a low IQ. We'd only be able to determine that once we had "Jack" in hand and even then it might not be all that relevant. Wichita Police, the KBI and the FBI were all expecting BTK to be a real-life Hannible Lecter... and were vastly disappointed by Rader, once they caught him, on that point.
I don't really know what is meant by a high IQ. It could be argued that anyone from the poorer classes who managed to survive at all in East London during that period, without the safety net of the welfare state, would have been possesssed of sharp wits at least. That's not to say that any of those people would necessarily have been able to master, say, university physics, even if they'd been given the time and education. I just find the idea of IQ rather nebulous.
The opposite is a lot easier to define - a stupid person isn't someone who doesn't have any answers - it's someone who doesn't have any questions.
----- good thinking Robert and neatly put......quite right .One of the main IQ tests that was given to children was called a "verbal reasoning" test.Maybe thats OK , if a child"s home language matches the language of the classroom [and therefore text book language] which is usually the case for many children from middle class backgrounds but when the child comes from a home background where the language spoken is not that of "middle England" then there can be a "mismatch" and a child"s performance on a "verbal" reasoning test becomes less reliable because such a child is less likely to do as well as a middle class child whose spoken and written language matches that of the school and the verbal test.
Theres good reason to imagine that people who might test highly on an IQ Test are from all walks of life...including those occupations the lower classes might toil in...so theres no reason to imagine that a toothless docker wasnt capable of very clever thought or brilliance even.
That being said, I dont think we necessarily have events or circumstances that are more than some very fortunate "timings" in the killers favour. He seems to come and go very successfully. Leaving just in the nick of time at perhaps 2 or 3 Canon deaths.
That might mean escape planning, but thats not too difficult if you know the variables. Some of the variables in these cases are the police coverage of locations. Did he know the variables? And what of the plainclothed and vigilantees? How do you plan for them?
I think he was really, really lucky....or perhaps someone a bit anal on details. That second one would fit a guy who doesnt want to be stopped.
Well, I doubt he was an idiot, in the literal sense of the word.
I also doubt he was a genius, even in the "brilliant salesman" or "genius hairstylist" way. He must have been deranged. How can you say someone was truly smart when he thought killing women was a good idea? He probably had some sort of brain damage that effected his judgment and impulse control, and this would have shown up in other areas of his life.
Anyhow, IQ is straightforward. It's a score on a test that hadn't even been invented when Jack was active. It's a good predictor of academic performance, and a decent predictor of job performance, especially if the job requires academic ability (duh). There's very little we can say about Jack's IQ other than the general "if he was brain damaged..." statement. Unless he was Montague Druitt or Lewis Carroll, who seem to have had high IQ.
As far as outsmarting the police...that shows a certain amount of intelligence, but maybe not as much as you'd think. It's not a equal competition. He was motivated by the desire not be caught and executed, and he got to pick the circumstances. If there was evidence pointing to him, it was because HE left it. If there were witnesses, it was because HE stood in front of them. If there were geographic and temporal patterns, it was because HE acted in a certain place and time.
I think a lot of us on this board could kill and mutilate people in a way that that police couldn't track down, and do even better than Jack. Certainly none of us would do something as lame as send an identifiable floppy disk to the police. Except that we'd object to the whole "kill and mutilate" part. Does that make us all smarter than Jack to begin with?
PS: That bit about "genius hairstylist" had me visualizing Kosminiski saying "I'll just hack off all your hair with this knife and put it by your feet!" A good illustration of why I don't think Jack would have been known as a brilliant anything.