Pathological Issues: Is It Perhaps What It Looks Like ?

[sepiae]

Hello everyone,

I'm sepiae, I'm relatively new here, and I'm opening this thread after having discussed a little on other people's threads.
Some of the exchanges have caused certain question regarding the idea, image and approach of the pathological murderer in me, and I'd be interested in ideas, opinions and further questions to follow mine.
I've attached a little musing that deals with the meaning of the word, various models of approach, my own approach, the question whether we can compare serial killers and related issues in our age with the late 19th century [which is often debated] and others questions.
It's short. Ish. No, it isn't, it's 15 pages, and I have no illusions about how many people might read it, but I'm attaching it [pdf] as it elaborates my point of view to an extent I cannot in a post.

One of the things that jump into the eye when alternative theories are developed is, that these have more often than not explanations at their heart that are easy to comprehend: motive and methods are being based on something rather sane, easy to follow - e.g. the removal of blackmailing witnesses to a scandal [the Masonic/Royal conspiracy], the messages left by the thugs of a cartel-like mob or the cover-up of a botched abortion. I'm not so much interested in arguing about how convincing the actual theories are here, but whether we perhaps strive to explain the near- or really incomprehensible by turning it into something comprehensible.

The very same can be observed in models of explaining details and actions of a crime, say the murder of Mary Kelly: the Why Did He Do That is usually attempted by very rational explanations, very, very practical reasons given. Because, I believe, we're musing and arguing from our, sane, position. We're arguing from what makes sense to us.
Which might not correspond with what makes sense to a mind that has other motives than we are ready to imagine.

I'm starting from the simple premise: there is motive, not only in the murder, but also in the details of the murder.

One of the most recent questions for me was -
what do you think about his handling organs. An excellent example, as it was immediately understood in the practical context. 'He took them from here to there, and perhaps for this or that purpose.'
I'd be interested in what anyone thinks the handling itself meant to him; do you have speculations?

The bottom line is access. Do we have it, to something so alien to us.

The questions:

- do you think JtR [what- or whoever you see in this name] should be called a pathological killer? or
- are these killings compulsive?
- do we have access to understanding 'pathological killing'?
- what do the details of the murders mean to you?
- the Handling of organs
- the Placing of organs
- anything you deem a detail that was important to
the perpetrator
- do we have a tendency to explain details by approaching them in a 'sane', rational manner that perhaps moves away from what the motivation has really been?
- do we perhaps exhibit a similar tendency in developing alternative theories that exclude a pathological killer?
- are we doing this in order to exclude such a person?

I caught myself including the following in a reply:
>> If you say, 'If I was the killer, if I was in that room, I would have... -
Nonono. If you were in that room you'd be having tea with Mary. You wouldn't have killed her in the first place. <<
Which is to say that when we're talking about being in somebody else's shoes we usually mean it literally - it's still me, and little if anything is achieved. Forget the shoes. The other way is way more difficult.

Can we? Do we have access?

Any thoughts, claims, hypotheses and, above all, always, questions to kick this one off are highly welcome and hotly anticipated.

[lynn cates]

compulsive

Hello Sepiae. Good questions; good approach.

If the killings were compulsive--and done by one hand--would there have been such a large gap in time between Eddowes and "MJK"? Moreover, would the killer have been able to stop, even though interrupted (claim made regarding Stride and Nichols)?

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

compulsive gaps

Hello Sepiae. Good questions; good approach.

If the killings were compulsive--and done by one hand--would there have been such a large gap in time between Eddowes and "MJK"? Moreover, would the killer have been able to stop, even though interrupted (claim made regarding Stride and Nichols)?

Cheers.
LC

Hi there,

compulsive, whether or not committed by one hand only, doesn't necessarily mean glued to it in the moment, meaning not to be pulled out of it whatever there cometh. I'd compare it with being spoken to while being absent-minded: you're pulled out of it.
A threat like this becomes the priority to deal with. Self-preservation. The urge, the compulsion is still there, however.
I think I don't have to repeat it every time, btw, but doing it now anyway: not saying this was the case here, it'd be just the answer to your question.

large gap: I prefer turning first towards the mundane possible answer and then the others - the gap might be explained by simple lack of opportunity. Police presence, people being more alert, attempts failed, including those that didn't go as far as to be recognized as attempts [e.g. a chosen victim not wanting to go with him].
It's been suggested that this gap, as forced upon him, also contributed to the change to an indoor location. I can buy that.

Reading the Isenschmidt thread, in between, with lots of unwanted interruptions...

[sepiae]

Trying to be as open as humanly possible, I'll nevertheless refer to 'him', for simplicity's sake, and also where the questions revolve around the possibility of a single killer.

Got to leave it for today.

Greetz to all.

[lynn cates]

non-compelling compulsions

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

Rather a nagging compulsion, then?

Yes, I have seen all those reasons for the various gaps--and even the change in venue. Interesting to contrast that with the theory that he had ALWAYS wanted an indoor killing, anyway.

Cheers.
LC

[Natasha]

Hello everyone,

I'm sepiae, I'm relatively new here, and I'm opening this thread after having discussed a little on other people's threads.
Some of the exchanges have caused certain question regarding the idea, image and approach of the pathological murderer in me, and I'd be interested in ideas, opinions and further questions to follow mine.
I've attached a little musing that deals with the meaning of the word, various models of approach, my own approach, the question whether we can compare serial killers and related issues in our age with the late 19th century [which is often debated] and others questions.
It's short. Ish. No, it isn't, it's 15 pages, and I have no illusions about how many people might read it, but I'm attaching it [pdf] as it elaborates my point of view to an extent I cannot in a post.

One of the things that jump into the eye when alternative theories are developed is, that these have more often than not explanations at their heart that are easy to comprehend: motive and methods are being based on something rather sane, easy to follow - e.g. the removal of blackmailing witnesses to a scandal [the Masonic/Royal conspiracy], the messages left by the thugs of a cartel-like mob or the cover-up of a botched abortion. I'm not so much interested in arguing about how convincing the actual theories are here, but whether we perhaps strive to explain the near- or really incomprehensible by turning it into something comprehensible.

The very same can be observed in models of explaining details and actions of a crime, say the murder of Mary Kelly: the Why Did He Do That is usually attempted by very rational explanations, very, very practical reasons given. Because, I believe, we're musing and arguing from our, sane, position. We're arguing from what makes sense to us.
Which might not correspond with what makes sense to a mind that has other motives than we are ready to imagine.

I'm starting from the simple premise: there is motive, not only in the murder, but also in the details of the murder.

One of the most recent questions for me was -
what do you think about his handling organs. An excellent example, as it was immediately understood in the practical context. 'He took them from here to there, and perhaps for this or that purpose.'
I'd be interested in what anyone thinks the handling itself meant to him; do you have speculations?

The bottom line is access. Do we have it, to something so alien to us.

The questions:

- do you think JtR [what- or whoever you see in this name] should be called a pathological killer? or
- are these killings compulsive?
- do we have access to understanding 'pathological killing'?
- what do the details of the murders mean to you?
- the Handling of organs
- the Placing of organs
- anything you deem a detail that was important to
the perpetrator
- do we have a tendency to explain details by approaching them in a 'sane', rational manner that perhaps moves away from what the motivation has really been?
- do we perhaps exhibit a similar tendency in developing alternative theories that exclude a pathological killer?
- are we doing this in order to exclude such a person?

I caught myself including the following in a reply:
>> If you say, 'If I was the killer, if I was in that room, I would have... -
Nonono. If you were in that room you'd be having tea with Mary. You wouldn't have killed her in the first place. <<
Which is to say that when we're talking about being in somebody else's shoes we usually mean it literally - it's still me, and little if anything is achieved. Forget the shoes. The other way is way more difficult.

Can we? Do we have access?

Any thoughts, claims, hypotheses and, above all, always, questions to kick this one off are highly welcome and hotly anticipated.

Hi Sepiae,

This killer had control over himself, he has never been named in place of his ‘trade name’ of JTR. I don’t think these killings were done out of compulsion, because of the time gap. This killer was methodical, organised, aware of his actions. A raving maniac with Schizophrenia for example would (I have no doubt) have been caught red handed as it were. It is possible that he lost his cool at times, but I think he exercised some self control. This person was very self aware and was very good at reading people.

This killer could possibly disassociate from being JTR. If this person had mental issues then the following may be worth noting: Many killers have mental health issues and they are not necessarily psychotic they could have dissociative disorder, bipolar disorder for example. Though JTR may have had psychopathic tendencies, lack of remorse, non emotional attachment, risk taker, superficially charming/charismatic, no regard for others emotionally etc, is only interested in himself.

Motive: If the above was true then I don’t think this person needed reassurance from other people. Could it be possible that the killer wasn’t on an ego trip? We then have to question motive. No sexual activity was displayed at the scenes? What was the killer’s weakness? The killer’s weakness was perhaps his motive for murder. He attacked the intimate areas. I know I have said in the past that that may be suggestive of a sexually oriented crime, but looking at the case of Emma Smith has changed my mind slightly. Emma Smith's attackers inserted a weapon into the intimate area and she was raped. Many sexually motivated crimes target this area with a weapon or through rape or both. The ripper I don’t think inserted anything into the private areas. That is a tell that maybe this crime wasn’t sexual. The reproductive organs are the target, but not out of anger, as they were removed not damaged. Why? Was the ripper taking away these women’s woman-hoods? Was the killer saying these women didn’t deserve the gift of giving life, especially as they were selling their bodies? Or was this about something more personal to the killer, was this about rebirth or transition for the killer? What do you think?

[sepiae]

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

Rather a nagging compulsion, then?

Yes, I have seen all those reasons for the various gaps--and even the change in venue. Interesting to contrast that with the theory that he had ALWAYS wanted an indoor killing, anyway.

Cheers.
LC

Yes, it needs a bit of distinction from compulsions governing the entire day in a more drastic manner - e.g. a man I've once met who needed to wear padded gloves at all times otherwise he'd scratch open his own lips, and who'd need a long time crossing a room as he absolutely had to knock his knees against every object repeatedly, all fully conscious, fighting it, but being slave to it.
That's ofc not the sort of compulsion meant here. The nagging compulsion, like that term. The drive. The 'thing that builds up'. That doesn't hinder the facade of a more or less ordinary life, perhaps even being the thing that enables it, as long as it can be regularly vented.

always wanted: or let's say it this way - whether indoor or not, he might have always wanted the extent, whatever sort of location would grant it; this might even be likely.

[sepiae]

I don’t think these killings were done out of compulsion, because of the time gap. This killer was methodical, organised, aware of his actions. A raving maniac with Schizophrenia for example would (I have no doubt) have been caught red handed as it were.

This killer could possibly disassociate from being JTR. If this person had mental issues then the following may be worth noting: Many killers have mental health issues and they are not necessarily psychotic

No sexual activity was displayed at the scenes? (...) He attacked the intimate areas. I know I have said in the past that that may be suggestive of a sexually oriented crime (...) The ripper I don’t think inserted anything into the private areas. That is a tell that maybe this crime wasn’t sexual. The reproductive organs are the target, but not out of anger, as they were removed not damaged. Why? Was the ripper taking away these women’s woman-hoods? Was the killer saying these women didn’t deserve the gift of giving life, especially as they were selling their bodies? Or was this about something more personal to the killer, was this about rebirth or transition for the killer? What do you think?

Hi Natasha,
I'm not in the habit of wanting to push people to read something I wrote, but you mentioned quite a few issues I was debating with myself in the essay-thing I've attached to the opening of the thread. I'm quite delighted about you tackling the question of what kind of pathology, if you like, we might see at work. And you're quite right, schizophrenia or any form of psychosis couldn't have been it, for the very reasons you stated.
Keep the following in mind, though, before you conclude from this that the perp was fully in control, not subject to compulsions [in a strict manner of speaking he would have been pretty much the only man on earth without] and not in some way sick. Which is precisely the headline topic for me here - Martin Fido met objections against his suspect 'David Cohen', who had to be held in restraints at the time he was incarcerated as a raving maniac, the objections saying exactly what you said above, that Jeffery Dahmer, for instance, was in perfect control up to the very moment the game was definitely up [that includes a very tricky situation for him, when the police was actually at his doorstep due to a boy having escaped from him, with 2 women knowing something was wrong: he remained calm and convincing - this ending with the (white) policemen ignoring the (black) women and actually ushering the (Asian) boy back in, where he was then murdered by Dahmer]. When he was arrested, when it was definitely the end of him, he turned into this raving maniac, as if by flipping a switch. Subsequently drugs ended the raving, drugs that weren't available in the late 19th century.
I'd go further and say that 'David Cohen' was detained because of erratic and threatening behaviour - we should assume that he wasn't raving for weeks and months prior.
As you did, I also make a distinction between the words 'psychopath' and 'psychotic' - the latter is bound to be recognized, at least seen, rather soon.
The former word is a little more vague. But a psychosis when blossoming would not allow a continuously functioning life. There are more afflictions, however, than psychoses, and I'm spending a rather lengthy distance on that in my lil musing.
I propose 2 models, one describing a self-feeding loop, where the drive that leads to such murders is actually the thing that enables the upholding of the facade of a normal life, but only as long as the drive can be satisfied. The other model indeed needs much more elaboration; in the shortest words possible, it's to do with The Mess, with complexes of severe problems that fall outside the psychiatric system, especially where the single factors are concerned, and might not be detected.
We can hide a lot. And the more complex and potentially severe what we're hiding, the more it might be likely to lead to breakdown if one is hindered in keeping it stable. Up till then one might appear as completely sane and healthy. As you said it: 'Many killers have mental health issues and they are not necessarily psychotic.'
Time gap: this, for instance, could be such an obstacle to satisfying that drive; I'm not saying it is, but it's a candidate. Increased police presence making it increasingly difficult for actually killing someone - it can both explain the gap and also, as a factor, the extreme severity of what was found at Miller's Court. The purely 'practical' factors alone might explain it: he might very well have wanted to, but was prevented, by the police presence, but what have you. He might have tried within that time, an such attempts might not have been registered, perhaps not even leading to an assault.
Above all we cannot expect a completely 'smooth' routine, as, say, a killing every 16 and a half days at precisely 2.45 am. A million possible reasons for a larger gap.
sexual component: from what you wrote I actually get the feeling that you're conflicted there. Regarding insertion, the stabbing of the genital area can be seen as a very extreme form of this. But mainly one should remember that 'sexually motivated' or 'sexually driven' or 'sexual component' are not terms that will always translate into literal lust. The killer himself might not at all see himself as stimulated. In its basics one must at least see that there's a reason for women being targeted. As 'sexual component' is concerned there's the focus on the uteri - it sort of cries out, I'd say.
'Was the ripper taking away these women’s woman-hoods?' Yes, why indeed?
Your suggestions for answers are intriguing; I named another one at the end of my lil musing. All in all I'd certainly say it was a very personal aspect for him, no matter what.

[Barnaby]

Hi Sepiae,

Interesting thread!

What distinguishes a pathological serial killer from a non-pathological serial killer?

For me, pathological killers murder because some aspect of that process (it need not be the kill per se) is inherently rewarding in of itself (no motive required) AND in the absence of engaging in this behavior they experience a build-up of cravings similar to that of a drug addict and obtain a release upon engaging in the behavior.

Much like drug addiction, with abstinence the cravings will peak but gradually over time they will weaken considerably and hopefully extinguish. So, while difficult, it certainly is possible for them to quit. And, like drug addiction, relapse is always possible!

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha,
I'm not in the habit of wanting to push people to read something I wrote, but you mentioned quite a few issues I was debating with myself in the essay-thing I've attached to the opening of the thread. I'm quite delighted about you tackling the question of what kind of pathology, if you like, we might see at work. And you're quite right, schizophrenia or any form of psychosis couldn't have been it, for the very reasons you stated.
Keep the following in mind, though, before you conclude from this that the perp was fully in control, not subject to compulsions [in a strict manner of speaking he would have been pretty much the only man on earth without] and not in some way sick. Which is precisely the headline topic for me here - Martin Fido met objections against his suspect 'David Cohen', who had to be held in restraints at the time he was incarcerated as a raving maniac, the objections saying exactly what you said above, that Jeffery Dahmer, for instance, was in perfect control up to the very moment the game was definitely up [that includes a very tricky situation for him, when the police was actually at his doorstep due to a boy having escaped from him, with 2 women knowing something was wrong: he remained calm and convincing - this ending with the (white) policemen ignoring the (black) women and actually ushering the (Asian) boy back in, where he was then murdered by Dahmer]. When he was arrested, when it was definitely the end of him, he turned into this raving maniac, as if by flipping a switch. Subsequently drugs ended the raving, drugs that weren't available in the late 19th century.
I'd go further and say that 'David Cohen' was detained because of erratic and threatening behaviour - we should assume that he wasn't raving for weeks and months prior.
As you did, I also make a distinction between the words 'psychopath' and 'psychotic' - the latter is bound to be recognized, at least seen, rather soon.
The former word is a little more vague. But a psychosis when blossoming would not allow a continuously functioning life. There are more afflictions, however, than psychoses, and I'm spending a rather lengthy distance on that in my lil musing.
I propose 2 models, one describing a self-feeding loop, where the drive that leads to such murders is actually the thing that enables the upholding of the facade of a normal life, but only as long as the drive can be satisfied. The other model indeed needs much more elaboration; in the shortest words possible, it's to do with The Mess, with complexes of severe problems that fall outside the psychiatric system, especially where the single factors are concerned, and might not be detected.
We can hide a lot. And the more complex and potentially severe what we're hiding, the more it might be likely to lead to breakdown if one is hindered in keeping it stable. Up till then one might appear as completely sane and healthy. As you said it: 'Many killers have mental health issues and they are not necessarily psychotic.'
Time gap: this, for instance, could be such an obstacle to satisfying that drive; I'm not saying it is, but it's a candidate. Increased police presence making it increasingly difficult for actually killing someone - it can both explain the gap and also, as a factor, the extreme severity of what was found at Miller's Court. The purely 'practical' factors alone might explain it: he might very well have wanted to, but was prevented, by the police presence, but what have you. He might have tried within that time, an such attempts might not have been registered, perhaps not even leading to an assault.
Above all we cannot expect a completely 'smooth' routine, as, say, a killing every 16 and a half days at precisely 2.45 am. A million possible reasons for a larger gap.
sexual component: from what you wrote I actually get the feeling that you're conflicted there. Regarding insertion, the stabbing of the genital area can be seen as a very extreme form of this. But mainly one should remember that 'sexually motivated' or 'sexually driven' or 'sexual component' are not terms that will always translate into literal lust. The killer himself might not at all see himself as stimulated. In its basics one must at least see that there's a reason for women being targeted. As 'sexual component' is concerned there's the focus on the uteri - it sort of cries out, I'd say.
'Was the ripper taking away these women’s woman-hoods?' Yes, why indeed?
Your suggestions for answers are intriguing; I named another one at the end of my lil musing. All in all I'd certainly say it was a very personal aspect for him, no matter what.

Hi Sepiae

In regards to compulsion. I guess the level of injury to the victims does reflect someone who did advance in his technique. Possibly because of the gap. The gap that was caused by unwanted attention to the murders perhaps. The gap that had angered him.

I would have thought that if the killer was compulsive, and needed to fulfill whatever it was that had driven him, would he not perhaps decide to change location and commit murders else where?

Which leads to me to think that the killer was intentionally committing these crimes in the sequence that he did for a reason other then the worry of getting caught. I take the point that he may have attempted to commit murders in between, and there was a report in the paper that said this.

It has been suggested that he lived elsewhere, was abroad most of the time etc this could be a possibility.

The sequence of events needs closer inspection I think.

[sepiae]

rewarding relapse

Hi Sepiae,

Interesting thread!

What distinguishes a pathological serial killer from a non-pathological serial killer?

For me, pathological killers murder because some aspect of that process (it need not be the kill per se) is inherently rewarding in of itself (no motive required) AND in the absence of engaging in this behavior they experience a build-up of cravings similar to that of a drug addict and obtain a release upon engaging in the behavior.

Much like drug addiction, with abstinence the cravings will peak but gradually over time they will weaken considerably and hopefully extinguish. So, while difficult, it certainly is possible for them to quit. And, like drug addiction, relapse is always possible!

Hi Barnaby,

and may I start by remarking that I'm cross with you because You picked the name I wanted before me...
And tell Burgho...

I'd say that whatever it is that is inherently rewarding, as you put it, is the motive. I believe it's what you mean, just for anyone else reading this and not being sure about it, there's always a motive, even though the motive might be hard to comprehend even after a killer is caught.

Interesting that you chose the addiction comparison; a little above I was struggling to find a good way of how to distinguish a severe compulsion, say of a neurological kind, from the compulsion that drives to repetitive actions that one is still able to hide, steer into the right lanes, even leaving off it for a while if necessary, but paying for this by building up tension, and I was thinking for a moment of addiction as an illustration [I'm positive Lynn knew what I meant anyway, but he's a good teacher for getting me to express myself in a precise manner].
I refrained from the comparison in the end, because I find the differences too heavy to keep in balance with the similarities. When it comes to compulsive murder we're all guessing, in the end, but as long as I may be guessing:
the comparison may hold up to the craving, but I think the reasons for stopping need to be sought in those few who had that much control, and those reasons might have been linked with pure self-preservation [not getting caught]; however, the only ultimate information about this can only come from the respective killer, and that's not the most reliable source. A serial murderer might have to consider the death penalty, depending where he is.

I also think that while we're all prone to get addicted easily [there's a reason why addiction is referred to as 'habit'], and while I'd count to the list of things we can get addicted to a lot more than drugs [which alone include 'druggy' drugs, alcohol, nicotine, sugar...], e.g. mannerisms and people, and while there's a good explanation for this as well, the 'mechanics', so to speak, of addiction, though complex they are, appear still simpler to me than a compulsion driving to repeated murder.
Addiction: I'm primed as a human being, I might be more primed to give into a temptation for biographical reasons, the addiction itself manifests over a relatively short period, in relatively comprehensible steps; the biographical background would still persist even if I'd have managed to avoid the addiction.
Compulsive murder: I can't even begin... I can, actually, but I'm blahblaing already... The gist is that the complex of trouble and mess reaches far more back with all probability.

I'm really blahing, I do get your point
Sorry if I'm wisearsing, I'll let it stand this way, because I'm so darn meticulous.

In any case, I agree with your distinction.

[sepiae]

Hi Sepiae

In regards to compulsion. I guess the level of injury to the victims does reflect someone who did advance in his technique. Possibly because of the gap. The gap that was caused by unwanted attention to the murders perhaps. The gap that had angered him.

I would have thought that if the killer was compulsive, and needed to fulfill whatever it was that had driven him, would he not perhaps decide to change location and commit murders else where?

Which leads to me to think that the killer was intentionally committing these crimes in the sequence that he did for a reason other then the worry of getting caught. I take the point that he may have attempted to commit murders in between, and there was a report in the paper that said this.

It has been suggested that he lived elsewhere, was abroad most of the time etc this could be a possibility.

The sequence of events needs closer inspection I think.

Hi Natasha,

advance in his technique: from the context I understand that you mean he advanced in savagery/extent of mutilations [?]

gap: yes, I agree, that is one explanation.

change of location: well, there is that possibility, of course, and quite a few actually think so. I can't tell. At this point I'm sort of remaining in Whitechapel/Spitalsfield. If he did depart in this way, it'd be an explanation why the murders stopped - if we don't count any of those later in London as his. I would carefully expect similar murders wherever he'd gone. Alone with the rather large diversity in opinion about who of all the murder victims around that time count to his, about whether he'd be able to change in his behaviour [as with murder] to a degree that we might not recognise him - it's sort of a guessing game. To my feeling, none of the murders described in other countries after appear to have that stamp.
Then there is the question if he would indeed have been able to. That now can be understood as in was he financially able, although means could be found where the will is [James Kelly attempted to walk from London to Liverpool - according to his words, at least]. Or was he able to leave without drawing attention [married? With children?]. Or was he able as it directly concerns what drove him to the murders?
Finally, he might not have been able to stay or walk in any of these contexts [incarcerated, died].

suggested that he lived elsewhere/was abroad most of the time:
possible, yes. Likely - rather not.
Elsewhere could of course also mean 'outside Whitechapel/Spitalsfield', i.e. in a manner as with Druitt. I suppose it'll have a lot to do with what you think is most likely as per everything you come up with of an image of the - always vague - personality after visiting as much as possible of what there is to know. To me it seems more likely that he was from the neighbourhood.

sequence of events needs closer inspection: always, and again and again!

Btw., have you thought about the handling? I'm obsessing, I know.
Handling as in handling for handling's sake.
I'm really most curious about people's thoughts about that...

[lynn cates]

opportunity knocks

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

I have always wondered why, if "he" wanted indoor/long session, he did not do so before? Plenty of opportunity.

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

I have always wondered why, if "he" wanted indoor/long session, he did not do so before? Plenty of opportunity.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

and good morning over there.
Indeed, plenty. It's one of the top 100 things I'd like to positively know.
Models for explaining 'him' there:
- 1st murder [whoever the victim was] was not as premeditated as we might think, the following a 'habit' resulting from the 1st. This might sound sluggish, what I mean is that he simply stuck to what he was 'used to', until being driven to an indoor location [e.g. by police presence]. It really depends on how organized he was.
- an indoor location might have provided, to his mind an additional risk; although I count the possibility in that he was rather careless more than bold, indoors could have been 'new and uncharted territory': the risk-factor needn't have to be the result of sensible weighing [logic on his behalf].

In the end, the 'benefits' of an indoor location should have been on the plate of any of such killings, if the killer or the respective killer would have approached with such reasoning.
Argument against this:
the indoor solution would have not worked with some or all of the previous victims [doss houses].
Argument against this again:
we'd have to assume him knowing his victims if this would really count.

More likely that they were opportunities, at the wrong place, to meet 'him.'

If so, this went both ways. A lot of questions regarding how he gained access to Kelly's room - it could have been simple opportunity as well.

[... still preoccuied w/ Isenschmid(t)..., I'll get to an answer]

[sepiae]

adding to the reply to Lynn:

another question is what it means if we're trying to say what he wanted.
What he wanted might have become gradually clearer to himself. He might have learned about the extent of what he wanted on the way.

This is actually a model I like a lot better than those 2 above.