Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Location Location Location

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

  • #31
    Serial killers and sexual offenders are completely different in terms of offending patterns, so can't be compared.
    Jon

    "It is far more comfortable to point a finger and declare someone a devil, than to call upon your imagination to try to understand their world."


    http://www.jlrees.co.uk



    Comment


    • #32
      But surely If sexual offenders become serial killers there must be a connection?

      The Jack the Ripper murders were sexual in there nature after all?

      I just dont know how you can make such a definitive Statement?

      Yours jeff

      PS http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publication...w%20paper.aspx
      Studies of the backgrounds of serial killers have found possible links between serial murder and childhood animal cruelty (Wright & Hensley 2003; Jenkins 1988); persistent bedwetting; arson (Douglas & Olshaker 1999); prior sexual offending (Francis & Soothill 2000); and childhood neglect and social and psychological deprivation (Riedel 1998; Wright & Hensley 2003; Power 1996; Jenkins 1988). However, it has been argued there is an 'overemphasis on environmental or biological determinism' as a means of diffusing the responsibility of serial killers for their crimes (Fox & Levin 2005: 113).

      I've done some quick internet searching and can find nothing that eliminates Serial killers from starting with Sexual abuse. Indeed there does appear to be a connection as far as I can see..Francis and Soothill 2000

      Comment


      • #33
        The Black Panther wasn't a serial killer as such, he was a career criminal who didn't hesitate to shoot if confronted

        He travelled to a very specific place to commit crime - Highley in Shropshire to kidnap Leslie Whittle after reading about her inheritance

        It's not clear that the JtR crimes are sexual in nature IMO

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
          But surely If sexual offenders become serial killers there must be a connection?

          The Jack the Ripper murders were sexual in there nature after all?

          I just dont know how you can make such a definitive Statement?

          Yours jeff

          PS http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publication...w%20paper.aspx
          Studies of the backgrounds of serial killers have found possible links between serial murder and childhood animal cruelty (Wright & Hensley 2003; Jenkins 1988); persistent bedwetting; arson (Douglas & Olshaker 1999); prior sexual offending (Francis & Soothill 2000); and childhood neglect and social and psychological deprivation (Riedel 1998; Wright & Hensley 2003; Power 1996; Jenkins 1988). However, it has been argued there is an 'overemphasis on environmental or biological determinism' as a means of diffusing the responsibility of serial killers for their crimes (Fox & Levin 2005: 113).

          I've done some quick internet searching and can find nothing that eliminates Serial killers from starting with Sexual abuse. Indeed there does appear to be a connection as far as I can see..Francis and Soothill 2000

          Hi Jeff,

          Is the Francis and Soothill article:
          Sex Offenders: Specialists, Generalists—or Both?
          Jon

          "It is far more comfortable to point a finger and declare someone a devil, than to call upon your imagination to try to understand their world."


          http://www.jlrees.co.uk



          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Nemo View Post

            It's not clear that the JtR crimes are sexual in nature IMO
            I disagree, I think the targeted areas of the mutilations and the posing of the bodies indicates there was a sexual motivation. Maybe not sex as we would understand it, but I think JTR definitely got sexual satisfaction from it.
            Jon

            "It is far more comfortable to point a finger and declare someone a devil, than to call upon your imagination to try to understand their world."


            http://www.jlrees.co.uk



            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
              But surely If sexual offenders become serial killers there must be a connection?
              I will modify my original statement as I realise now it was slightly all encompassing. CERTAIN kids of sexual offenders can become CERTAIN types of serial killers, but so can numerous other types of criminals.

              The type of offender Saville seems to be from the press report doesn't square with the type of offender that would become a serial killer of this type IMO - if you can find me a study that has data showing that a sexual offender who would manoeuvre himself into a position of trust to have unrestricted contact with kids, who then goes on to become a serial killer of the same nature as JTR and I'll be prepared to accept your premise.
              Jon

              "It is far more comfortable to point a finger and declare someone a devil, than to call upon your imagination to try to understand their world."


              http://www.jlrees.co.uk



              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Big Jon View Post
                I will modify my original statement as I realise now it was slightly all encompassing. CERTAIN kids of sexual offenders can become CERTAIN types of serial killers, but so can numerous other types of criminals.

                The type of offender Saville seems to be from the press report doesn't square with the type of offender that would become a serial killer of this type IMO - if you can find me a study that has data showing that a sexual offender who would manoeuvre himself into a position of trust to have unrestricted contact with kids, who then goes on to become a serial killer of the same nature as JTR and I'll be prepared to accept your premise.
                Hi Jon

                I wasnt making the claim that Saville type offending (And we are yet to know fully what that was) is the same as Serial killing. Indeed there are different types of Serial killers.

                I was drawing comparisons to locations and offending patterns. Clearly victims of a serial killer are going to stand out far more than those of the Sex offender as there is an end product, the body, and a missing person. So I think making an assumption that sex offenders are more prolific would also be reasonable assumption.

                I also made the comparison with a Smoker but I'm not suggesting smokers are likely to become serial killers or Sex offenders. However when I was a smoker I had my patterns. Places to go, where i knew I could could get a quite fag sheltered from the wind. I'd smoke where ever I went not just in one place. Leave a trail of Butts. OK a little jovial but what i didnt do is get on a train to New Castle get off the other end and suddenly stop being a Smoker..

                So what I'm saying is that I don't see that sexual predators, be they of a serial killer variety, or any other variety including the non-illeagal, will commit attacks in a single location and then head back to another base and only commit attacks in that single location.

                So I was drawing comparison rather than saying Serial Killers and Sexual Abusers are the same. There are far to many differences to be drawn within there own groups, but I think my Urban Fox mind set works fairly well

                Unless someone has examples of other serial killers opporating like Colin ireland who appears to be an exception rather than the rule.

                Yours Jeff

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                  Jack the Ripper opporated like Saville
                  Hi Jeff,

                  I don't understand this. Savile chose to operate, as you admit yourself, over a wide area, wherever he did charitable work and had easy access to his prey.

                  Jack operated in the one teeny tiny area (as far as is known) and that could have been from necessity, convenience, personal preference or because he could nip in and out of the area with no questions asked and it was safer than doing it on his own doorstep. We just don't know.

                  But you keep mentioning Colin Ireland then dismiss him as the exception to the rule. He is an exception that proves this 'rule' can't be trusted! He didn't kill in Barking, as you stated, and he killed at least five gay men, in a similar time frame to the ripper's. He was unemployed at the time, but travelled by train all the way to Fulham, in west London, from his Southend home, picking up every one of his victims from the same pub!

                  Mark Dixie is also an interesting example of a repeat sexual offender who included murder and a genuine double event in his nasty box of tricks. He travelled up to Croydon one Saturday night (from Crawley I believe) and ended up attacking two women on the residential South Croydon streets. He had to abort the first attack because of a passing taxi (makes a change from a pony and cart), but soon found a better bet, brutally killing Sally Anne Bowman right by her own doorstep. He had once lived on the same street.

                  I can't post on the Maybrick thread today for some reason (I've asked Tim to fix it for me - how's about that then?) so I'll say it here. What makes the diary so intriguing, with its premise that the other 'Sir Jim' made careful plans to commute all the way to Whitechapel, London, to 'down whores' there, is that its author couldn't possibly have predicted that in the early 1990s Colin Ireland would do something uncannily similar. He carefully planned his series of commuter murders, presumably on the basis of 'issues' he had with homosexual men (as 'Sir Jim' had issues with whores) and at the time they made extremely easy victims (as easy as the 'whores' of Whitechapel). I don't believe there were not many other gay haunts he could have frequented between the Essex coast and west London (Soho anyone??), but he chose a pub in an area far from home, where he had no other business. He killed the men in their own homes, staying overnight and travelling back to Southend the next morning, against the commuter traffic. Nobody who knew him had the faintest idea where he had been or what he was up to.

                  Just one cctv image, and one fingerprint identified Ireland as the man who had been taunting the police with phonecalls, in his frustration at their failure to link the victims to a single killer. Had he not been caught, I presume that you and Chris George, to name but two, would be arguing strongly against looking for the killer so far from that pub, and indeed so far from London.

                  I'm not arguing that Maybrick could be an earlier example of the same phenomenon. I'm pointing out that Colin Ireland's example, after the diary emerged, proves that its author was either very lucky or very insightful, when it comes to the unique mind of each and every serial offender.

                  Or does anyone think Colin Ireland read the diary and took his inspiration straight from its pages? Actually, scrub that - Ireland planned and executed his murders between the diary coming to light and its publication. It only became available a couple of months before he was convicted in December 1993. How's that for a stunning coincidence, that really is a coincidence this time?

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Caroline Morris View Post
                    Hi Jeff,

                    I don't understand this. Savile chose to operate, as you admit yourself, over a wide area, wherever he did charitable work and had easy access to his prey.

                    Jack operated in the one teeny tiny area (as far as is known) and that could have been from necessity, convenience, personal preference or because he could nip in and out of the area with no questions asked and it was safer than doing it on his own doorstep. We just don't know.
                    I think my premise here is that Sexual Predators attack where ever they go, and I sited Jimmy Saville as an example of a Predator who appears to have commited attacks at all the locations he visited.

                    I then concluded that JtR was probably based in Whitechapel as there appears to be no attacks outside Whitechapel. So i dont think JtR living outside of London and travelling into London is Probable. I caveated that with one exception. I cant think of another serial killer apart from Ireland so he's a rare annomily.

                    Originally posted by Caroline Morris View Post
                    But you keep mentioning Colin Ireland then dismiss him as the exception to the rule. He is an exception that proves this 'rule' can't be trusted! He didn't kill in Barking, as you stated, and he killed at least five gay men, in a similar time frame to the ripper's. He was unemployed at the time, but travelled by train all the way to Fulham, in west London, from his Southend home, picking up every one of his victims from the same pub!
                    Yes, but the probability is that a Serial killer wont behave like this.

                    Originally posted by Caroline Morris View Post
                    Mark Dixie is also an interesting example of a repeat sexual offender who included murder and a genuine double event in his nasty box of tricks. He travelled up to Croydon one Saturday night (from Crawley I believe) and ended up attacking two women on the residential South Croydon streets. He had to abort the first attack because of a passing taxi (makes a change from a pony and cart), but soon found a better bet, brutally killing Sally Anne Bowman right by her own doorstep. He had once lived on the same street.
                    Did he? I didnt know that. As you know I worked on a program with theh family and Mark Dixie is indeed a strange case that would suggest serial killers dont always conform to stereo types. He was actually staying with freinds about three miles away the night he killed Sally. He'd taken a heavy mixture of Cannabis and Cocane. The others had gone to bed and he left he house around 3 am returning before the others realized he had gone. He appears to have been under the effects of Drug induced 'Psychosis'. I dont think he attacked anyone else in the UK. He was only fitted by DNA following a fight in a pub watching football, he was arrested..He was linked to attacks in Australia but no matches.. So he's not technically a serial killer. But very interesting.

                    Originally posted by Caroline Morris View Post
                    I can't post on the Maybrick thread today for some reason (I've asked Tim to fix it for me - how's about that then?) so I'll say it here. What makes the diary so intriguing, with its premise that the other 'Sir Jim' made careful plans to commute all the way to Whitechapel, London, to 'down whores' there, is that its author couldn't possibly have predicted that in the early 1990s Colin Ireland would do something uncannily similar. He carefully planned his series of commuter murders, presumably on the basis of 'issues' he had with homosexual men (as 'Sir Jim' had issues with whores) and at the time they made extremely easy victims (as easy as the 'whores' of Whitechapel). I don't believe there were not many other gay haunts he could have frequented between the Essex coast and west London (Soho anyone??), but he chose a pub in an area far from home, where he had no other business. He killed the men in their own homes, staying overnight and travelling back to Southend the next morning, against the commuter traffic. Nobody who knew him had the faintest idea where he had been or what he was up to.

                    Just one cctv image, and one fingerprint identified Ireland as the man who had been taunting the police with phonecalls, in his frustration at their failure to link the victims to a single killer. Had he not been caught, I presume that you and Chris George, to name but two, would be arguing strongly against looking for the killer so far from that pub, and indeed so far from London.
                    I probably would be arguing that as its the most probable conclusion. Interesting I know Southend well, and there are Gay pubs, but in the 1980's these were always clicky affairs.. I think Heaven existed in teh 80's, not Turn Mills or Trade. But it is curious he used the same pub I agree.

                    Maybrick however would have had easy access to whores where ever he went.. I still don't by the only in London argument.

                    Originally posted by Caroline Morris View Post
                    I'm not arguing that Maybrick could be an earlier example of the same phenomenon. I'm pointing out that Colin Ireland's example, after the diary emerged, proves that its author was either very lucky or very insightful, when it comes to the unique mind of each and every serial offender.

                    Or does anyone think Colin Ireland read the diary and took his inspiration straight from the pages?

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Its been a while since I researched him. I dont think there was ever any suggestion that he knew or read the Diary although the Documentary vioced by Tom Baker was of this period. Interesting.

                    Yours Jeffx

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Thanks for the comment about the murders being sexually motivated Jon

                      I tend toward that conclusion but I think there is room for the contention that the murders were committed due to certain mental conditions, usually schizophrenic type illnesses, that result in some manifestation of violence which is not overtly sexual

                      I flit between that and the killer being totally controlled

                      I'm not certain whether a sexual element to a murder gives it a sexual significance

                      For example, how would the murders of Richard Chase be "defined"

                      He raped some of his victims but generally mutilated and removed body parts and drank blood due to some mental delusion

                      I think that referring to his crimes as "sexually motivated" would be an oversimplification

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Nemo View Post
                        Thanks for the comment about the murders being sexually motivated Jon

                        I tend toward that conclusion but I think there is room for the contention that the murders were committed due to certain mental conditions, usually schizophrenic type illnesses, that result in some manifestation of violence which is not overtly sexual

                        I flit between that and the killer being totally controlled

                        I'm not certain whether a sexual element to a murder gives it a sexual significance

                        For example, how would the murders of Richard Chase be "defined"

                        He raped some of his victims but generally mutilated and removed body parts and drank blood due to some mental delusion

                        I think that referring to his crimes as "sexually motivated" would be an oversimplification
                        I think there are sexual connections. Targeting the sexual organs and lower female area seems the purpose in all the murders except Stride Mylett and Coles.

                        Mental dis-orders like Schizophrenia are usually associated with low sex drive, much like bi-polar, but can sometimes be associated with satyriasis
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersexuality

                        'psychosis' can also happen in a number of Mental conditions, and as explained in the case of Mark Dixie might also be associated with high levels of substance abuse of a number of different drugs and chemicals. Which in turn can also trigger mental illness.

                        So I don't think you could eleminate an Arsnic addict.. But the sex addiction would certainly not go away when he left London..

                        But I think i'd agree that a straight comparison to a sexual preditor like Saville would be miss leading.. Whatever was going through the Rippers head was drastically altered and corrupted through any rational thought process.

                        Yours Jeff

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                          I think my premise here is that Sexual Predators attack where ever they go, and I sited Jimmy Saville as an example of a Predator who appears to have commited attacks at all the locations he visited.

                          I then concluded that JtR was probably based in Whitechapel as there appears to be no attacks outside Whitechapel.
                          Hi Jeff,

                          I still don't understand why you wrote that JtR operated like Savile. We don't know where JtR lived or worked, but it seems he only operated in a tiny area of Whitechapel and he risked the hangman if caught, whereas Savile apparently preyed on youngsters wherever he went in England, and didn't seem to care much who knew about it, because the culture at the time was to turn a blind eye and let him get on with it.

                          We know from Colin Ireland's example that serial killers don't follow rules set by you, me, sexual predators like Savile, or anyone else, including other serial killers. Ireland behaved exactly how he wanted to behave, and as it happens this was pretty much how the diary author had 'Sir Jim' behave, and with a very similar mindset. That's the only point I'm trying to make. We don't know that JtR behaved anything like this, but Ireland's example should be telling us that we don't know he didn't either, or even that he 'probably' didn't. Every serial killer is a unique human being like the rest of us, and a rule unto himself.

                          Mark Dixie may not technically be a serial killer, but he was certainly a repeat sexual offender, committing at least one previous sexual offence in Croydon, several years before his murderous double event. His example makes all arguments against Stride's inclusion extremely weak in my view, but the main point here was the fact that he returned to the very street where he had once lived after the first unsuccessful attack that night, where he found a second victim and carried out a particularly horrific murder, before using the body to relieve himself sexually.

                          Maybrick however would have had easy access to whores where ever he went.. I still don't by the only in London argument.
                          As I said, it's not my 'argument' as such; it's what the diary author had 'Sir Jim' do, and he was actually allowed an attack in Manchester, possibly two, in addition to the C5, although from the text it's apparent that 'Sir Jim' felt more comfortable in his chosen Whitechapel hunting ground. Colin Ireland would have had the same easy access to gays, in all sorts of venues between Southend and west London, but Ireland himself dictated that it was the Fulham pub for him or nowhere - his only hunting ground and comfort zone. Before cctv or fingerprinting, it would have been nigh on impossible to catch him unless he gave himself away, precisely because nobody would be looking that far afield, believing it much more 'probable' that the killer was living in the immediate vicinity of that pub. So maybe there are other 'commuters' among the unsolved cases, explaining why they remain unsolved.

                          Its been a while since I researched him. I dont think there was ever any suggestion that he knew or read the Diary although the Documentary vioced by Tom Baker was of this period. Interesting.
                          No, as I found out, Ireland couldn't have read the diary beforehand, or guessed that the plot would so closely resemble real life, in the form of his own ghastly murder series.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Caroline Morris View Post
                            Hi Jeff,

                            I still don't understand why you wrote that JtR operated like Savile. We don't know where JtR lived or worked, but it seems he only operated in a tiny area of Whitechapel and he risked the hangman if caught, whereas Savile apparently preyed on youngsters wherever he went in England, and didn't seem to care much who knew about it, because the culture at the time was to turn a blind eye and let him get on with it.
                            Hold on Caroline. I never stated this..

                            Please go back and read my posts..

                            I said that having discussed Saville I'd given thought to the nature of 'SEXUAL PREDATORS' general.

                            My only conclusion was that people with addictions (largely to sex) behave much like smokers ie they are always addicted,, where ever they go..

                            Figure the rest for yourself but I've never claimed what you are claiming

                            YOurs Jeff

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Caroline Morris View Post
                              Hi Jeff,

                              I still don't understand why you wrote that JtR operated like Savile. We don't know where JtR lived or worked, but it seems he only operated in a tiny area of Whitechapel and he risked the hangman if caught, whereas Savile apparently preyed on youngsters wherever he went in England, and didn't seem to care much who knew about it, because the culture at the time was to turn a blind eye and let him get on with it.

                              We know from Colin Ireland's example that serial killers don't follow rules set by you, me, sexual predators like Savile, or anyone else, including other serial killers. Ireland behaved exactly how he wanted to behave, and as it happens this was pretty much how the diary author had 'Sir Jim' behave, and with a very similar mindset. That's the only point I'm trying to make. We don't know that JtR behaved anything like this, but Ireland's example should be telling us that we don't know he didn't either, or even that he 'probably' didn't. Every serial killer is a unique human being like the rest of us, and a rule unto himself.

                              Mark Dixie may not technically be a serial killer, but he was certainly a repeat sexual offender, committing at least one previous sexual offence in Croydon, several years before his murderous double event. His example makes all arguments against Stride's inclusion extremely weak in my view, but the main point here was the fact that he returned to the very street where he had once lived after the first unsuccessful attack that night, where he found a second victim and carried out a particularly horrific murder, before using the body to relieve himself sexually.



                              As I said, it's not my 'argument' as such; it's what the diary author had 'Sir Jim' do, and he was actually allowed an attack in Manchester, possibly two, in addition to the C5, although from the text it's apparent that 'Sir Jim' felt more comfortable in his chosen Whitechapel hunting ground. Colin Ireland would have had the same easy access to gays, in all sorts of venues between Southend and west London, but Ireland himself dictated that it was the Fulham pub for him or nowhere - his only hunting ground and comfort zone. Before cctv or fingerprinting, it would have been nigh on impossible to catch him unless he gave himself away, precisely because nobody would be looking that far afield, believing it much more 'probable' that the killer was living in the immediate vicinity of that pub. So maybe there are other 'commuters' among the unsolved cases, explaining why they remain unsolved.



                              No, as I found out, Ireland couldn't have read the diary beforehand, or guessed that the plot would so closely resemble real life, in the form of his own ghastly murder series.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              You still havnt explained how Maybrick, if he visited verious towns and places of business around the UK, WHY?????? he only committed attacks in Whitchapel. The examples of Ireland and Dixie don't explain this!

                              They are both different to various degrees, its that simple, and they are very rare exceptions to the rule, at least Ireland is. You cant provide another example but there are hundreds of examples that contradict the premise.

                              Sexual Preditors think and act like sexual Peditors, like 'Smokers' they are addicts and behave as such.. where ever they go0

                              Maybrick must have attacted in other towns if he was the ripper

                              Yours Jeff

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Caroline Morris View Post
                                Hi Jeff,

                                No, as I found out, Ireland couldn't have read the diary beforehand, or guessed that the plot would so closely resemble real life, in the form of his own ghastly murder series.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                As explained Ireland is a 'one off' a rare exception to the rule. So probability goes against Maybrick acting in this way.

                                I personally think Ireland was more interested in a easy pick up place that he was familiar with... Whitechapel was no easier a pick up place than any other for whores in UK at that time

                                Yours Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X