The "One On One" Thread

[How Brown]

Thread for two daring individuals with opposing viewpoints on aspects of the Case to go "mano a mano'.

Volunteer, anyone?

[Adam Went]

How:

A good idea, I think. Definitely worth a try.
I'm happy to give it a shot.....who wants to try and tell me that George Chapman wasn't JTR or that Elizabeth Stride wasn't a victim?

Cheers,
Adam. ;)

[How Brown]

Ad:

Give credit where its due...not to me, but to Stan Russo. Thanks anyway.

Okay, since you have stepped up here....would anyone care to wrassle with Adam on one of these two elements of the Case?

[Mr. Poster]

Hmmmm

who wants to try and tell me that George Chapman wasn't JTR

Not me...................

p

[Adam Went]

Have we finally uncovered another Chapmanite on the forums, Mr. Poster?
Please tell me we have....it's way, way overdue...

Cheers,
Adam. ;)

[How Brown]

Until Monday, I'll have to wait until establishing a permanent thread/Forum for this idea that Stan had.

Until then, I can set up threads within this particular Forum and wait for Tim to organize them.

Please let me know if you have an aspect and an opponent to begin debating with on anything within the Case you wish.

I will also set up "sidelines" for people to comment on the ongoing debate in another thread.

Thanks !

[Stan Russo]

How,

That would work perfectly. I think this can actually improve the back and forth between members while also providing better debates.

I also think we need to have the members of the forums understand that there will be three threads necessary for this to work:

The general thread where people can either challenge a person to debate a topic, or make an open challenge to anyone who wants to debate a topic; the actual debate thread where only those two participants can post as a debate would work and a third thread, for outsiders (anyone other than those 2 debaters) to comment on issues raised within the debate.

As is standard, admins should be allowed to monitor and or moderate the debate as they see fit, as well as the comment thread, but this will not work if people interrupt the two debaters with their own posts. That should be left to the commentary thread. Not all debates will be good or informative, but as anyone who has ever been involved in an issue on the boards can attest to, often times that particular issue gets muddied over with outsider interference/input.

Thanks should go to Howard for okaying the idea and putting it into play, with the help of Tim of course.

Adam Went has already got the ball rolling by openly challenging anyone to debate the merits of George Chapman as JTR. If someone takes him up on it, the site will have its first one on one debate and hopefully some positive or constructive commentary about the debate.

I see more one on one debates in the future, one including myself and a well respected author/historian of the case in the works.

[Adam Went]

Hey guys,

A very good idea in the making here.

One thing I think it's worthwhile mentioning though is that for a one on one debate like that to work, it probably needs to be made so that only members who can respond to the thread frequently take part - naturally there are times for all of us when we are busy, away or whatever and can't respond as we normally would, but if a debate comes up where the 2 debatees are going to take several days to reply, it's going to be a fizzer in itself and it's also not going to provide any consistent discussion in the thread for other members to discuss the debate either.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Adam. :)

[Stan Russo]

Adam ,

That is a good point - Howard, Tim or Bob should set up some debate guidelines.

[How Brown]

Folks:

As soon as I can get into the control panel...when Tim comes back,because I am locked out at present....I will set up the three threads within a Forum.

I suppose the only real rule to follow would be to avoid personal jabs and dredging up comments from years past, since most of us have changed our views at least a little in one regard or another.

If you two or anyone else have any other comments to make before this commences,please let us know. After all, it is your site.

[Robert Linford]

How, just to suggest that the one on one is actually locked to anyone other than the two participants. Otherwise, there will always be some third party posting on there and then posts have to be deleted/transferred and it all gets a bit messy.

[How Brown]

Bob:

Exactly.

The first thread will be the two gladiators...

....the second for the observers...and there's where the action might really get hot !

The third is for those to challenge anyone to debate.

I formally challenge anyone from any site or out yonder on their own...here,at Casebook,at JTRForums.UK, or the Maybrick Site...even our German and Dutch siters...to a debate on the 48 Hour Suspect Stephenson.

I'll whup 'em.

[Stan Russo]

How,

this thing could really work well.

I think Paul and I may want to debate Anderson, but that's not formally set yet.

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

I like the idea of having the one-on-one shut off to all but the two people who are involved in it - unless of course a moderator needs to step in.

Also, as another suggestion, how about some sort of time limit for each discussion? If there's 2 seperate threads for each topic and we end up with 3,4,5 or more active one-on-one's at the same time, it's all going to get pretty confusing, especially if everything is in the same section - how about just having 1-2 discussions at any one time and letting them have a time limit of, just as an example, 2 weeks? Then if the discussion is still raging by that point and the 2 participants would like to continue, perhaps move the threads to an individual forum of one of the participants or something and let it go on there? What do you think?

Cheers,
Adam. :)

[WRITEFX]

This seems like a really good idea, I have somehow missed these posts up to now.

I'd love to do it but don't have the time at present as it's one thing to read the posts, but not always time to digest it and write a proper reply.

Good luck to those that take up the challenge.

[Stan Russo]

Adam,

I think what Howard and Tim will do is to create a new topic called the one on one debate threads, with its own heading - therefore, inside the topic, people can create debate and or discussions and it will all be contained within, such as suspects or Victims or Media

[How Brown]

Please bear with me, since I cannot access the control panel to establish new Forums.

I hope Tim had a nice vacation...since I am gonna kill him when he gets back.

[SirRobertAnderson]

How,

this thing could really work well.

I think Paul and I may want to debate Anderson, but that's not formally set yet.

I'm thinking STEEL CAGE DEATH MATCH. :pop2:

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

Stan:

Ah, now I understand. That'd definitely be the best way of doing it.

One more suggestion and then I'll butt out: If and when a one-on-one discussion comes to an end, on the second thread, perhaps forum members could take a vote on who they think has won the debate? Turn it into a poll and find out who forum members think has been the most convincing?

Cheers,
Adam. :)

[Stan Russo]

Adam,

That's a good idea, but more importantly than who won is whether or not anyone has advanced knowledge about the case. I'll gladly take a loss in a debate if I at least helped advance the knowledge of the case

[Mike Raney]

I really like the idea of this debate thing. I would love to go one on one with anyone. I also agree, it matters not who wins the debate, the measure of success is wether or not we were able to teach someone something. I have seen threads that go back and forth between people in an environment that is not like what is proposed here. It very quickly turns from a debate to pissing contest and yet, I have still managed to gain information that I didn't have before.

Mikey

[How Brown]

it matters not who wins the debate, the measure of success is wether or not we were able to teach someone something.--Mike Raney

Absolutely sor..

Mikey...think of an issue you are confident with...and ask someone from the site or even from out in the hinterlands...if their opinion differs....and then challenge 'em.

[How Brown]

This spot open for a potential one on one if anyone cares to engage in a little of this:boxing:followed by a little of this:tea:

[captjojo]

Okay, I'll take on this challenge...lol...

To start with I want to clarify my position on the topic Lars and I were discussing, which is criminal profiling.

I do not believe in any way that profiles solve crimes. They are an investigative tool, but not one that I would count out.

I'm amused that this debate started from my posting a definition of MO and signature from Robert Keppel, for these reasons:

1. Keppel is not a profiler, he's a law enforcement consultant with a long list of successful investigations of serial homicide to his credit. He's not the "profiler" he's someone they call in to help organize a task force, streamline procedures and advise.

2. That somehow the idea of a criminal's signature is being confused with a psychological profile. Both MO and signature are patterns deduced from the evidence presented in the crimes themselves. They do not speculate as to the killer's age, race, childhood, profession unless there is some specific clue that points to them (industrial paint used in some way in multiple crimes might indicate someone who has access professionally, that kind of thing). The signature has been used legally to link cases where there was more evidence in one than the other. But I stress that both MO and signature are things taken from the known facts of the crime...how does he work, what pattern may indicate crimes committed by the same individual. Neither MO nor signature is arrived at by placing a formula on the crimes in question, rather they are helpful patterns that the detectives assigned to a series of crimes can look for in order to help determine whether those crimes are connected.

Now as far as actual criminal profiling, I feel that it is in fact a useful investigative tool, that is often misrepresented in the media to be some kind of arcane "art form" that can identify the killer.

It is not that. It is in fact a speculation based on patterns in similar crimes in the past as to recurring characteristics in certain types of criminals. It is not to be looked at as something that means, go out and find a guy that matches all these criteria and he's your killer. Rather it is supposed to be used as an aid in narrowing and prioritizing suspect lists in an ongoing investigation. A good investigation would likely use more than one profile in the course of their investigation.

For instance, if you've had three separate tips about two individuals, with no other physical evidence, and only enough available manpower to follow up on one this week, if you've got three different profiles that indicate something major that only one of those candidates matches, you then can hopefully increase the odds that you pursue the more valid lead first. And a good investigative team would guard against allowing anyone involved to become to fixated on any one profile.


To keep it in the arena of Keppel, on the Greenriver case they used a couple of law enforcement profiles at different points, and even did not rule out the thoughts of the last serial killer to stalk their area with similar crimes (the primary motivation in the Bundy interviews was to see if they could nail him for his crimes in Washington State which he was never charged with, secondarily they figured it couldn't hurt to get some insight into the criminal mind from Bundy who aside from his own experiences had corresponded with quite a few other noted murderers and serial killers).

Now none of those profiles "solved the case", that case was solved by the foresight of detectives in the mid 80s to take saliva samples from Ridgeway when he was under suspicion in the hopes that technology would evolve to the point that they could be used to prove his guilt or innocence (a correct assumption).

That being said, the profiles that were utilized in the course of the investigation, if only to assist detectives in finding new ways to look at various leads, each matched Ridgeway to a fair degree in varying ways. So what I take from that is that such profiles of an unnamed suspect could, through detectives familiarity with them, perhaps support a hunch here, or spark an idea there that could be valuable in the investigations of such a killer.

That is what profiles are for, not to put out a description of the individual criminal, but rather, based on patterns in similar solved crimes, provide detectives with a fresh perspective that may aid them in how they see the case...Lars is absolutely correct that profilers do not solve cases, that is not their job, their job is to provide an aid for investigators. It's the detectives who deserve credit for solving these cases, but that does not mean that a criminal profile is not a useful investigative aid if properly applied.