Yes I agree. The London police in 1888 did not have access to techniques such as psychological profiling and it was before the advent of mainstream fingerprinting. Also this was pretty much the first example of mass media hysteria, for which they were understandably ill-prepared. It was like being hit by the first ever torpedo.
But is such psychological profiling such a great idea? Worked wonderfully well in the Rachel Nickell case didn't it?
But is such psychological profiling such a great idea? Worked wonderfully well in the Rachel Nickell case didn't it?
Well I think it's just a tool in the detectives box, nothing more than that. If employed correctly, it might help in a case, but it's not a magic wand and it's probably a mistake to place too much emphasis on it. In 1888, and indeed in 1980 to a much lesser extent, the police didn't have as many tools in their box as they have today
Immediately after Sutcliffe was sent down the News of the World offered a reward of £100,000 for information leading to the arrest of Wearside Jack. I wonder if anyone ever collected?
One of the reasons why they thought that Wearside Jack might to the Ripper was that the murderer of Joan Harrison was a B secretor as was Wearside Jack. As far as I remember Sutcliffe is B group but not a secretor.
I don't believe Sutcliffe heard voices, for a minute. He had plenty of time to observe his wife's symptoms, though.
Agreed. I think Sonia was an irrelevance to him outside of her ability to confirm his alibis when he needed her to. She was the typical meek wife, always ready to believe and stick up for her husband.
He was very lucky to have her, I think. (if that's not too dark)
Agreed. I think Sonia was an irrelevance to him outside of her ability to confirm his alibis when he needed her to. She was the typical meek wife, always ready to believe and stick up for her husband.
He was very lucky to have her, I think. (if that's not too dark)
I keep seeing references to her being domineering and controlling of him, hardly the meek wife?
I keep seeing references to her being domineering and controlling of him, hardly the meek wife?
Relationships are more complex than that though. How many times have you seen the dominant one in a partnership, also turn out to be the needier one? We can never know the dynamics there, really so it's useless to speculate. But I have noticed, amongst couples I know, that sometimes the one who seems to call all the shots, is being enabled by the other, quieter person and sometimes it is that other person who has the real power.
So anything is possible.
Maybe the get-out clause that he was 'hearing voices' occurred to him, slowly and naturally, after observing her behaviours and that would make it marginally easier to live with what he was doing. If that makes sense? Ie: He wasn't entirely 'lying' about hearing voices... he was deceiving himself.
Relationships are more complex than that though. How many times have you seen the dominant one in a partnership, also turn out to be the needier one? We can never know the dynamics there, really so it's useless to speculate. But I have noticed, amongst couples I know, that sometimes the one who seems to call all the shots, is being enabled by the other, quieter person and sometimes it is that other person who has the real power.
So anything is possible.
Maybe the get-out clause that he was 'hearing voices' occurred to him, slowly and naturally, after observing her behaviours and that would make it marginally easier to live with what he was doing. If that makes sense? Ie: He wasn't entirely 'lying' about hearing voices... he was deceiving himself.
True, and Im also puzzled about the hearing voices thing. It was determined that he wasnt 'insane' when he committed the crimes but he was also diagnosed as schizophrenic at the time of his trial and later when he was sent to prison. So was he mentally ill or not. Seems to be a lot of psychiatrists giving the same diagnosis and yet so much disput over his mental health condition
True, and Im also puzzled about the hearing voices thing. It was determined that he wasnt 'insane' when he committed the crimes but he was also diagnosed as schizophrenic at the time of his trial and later when he was sent to prison. So was he mentally ill or not. Seems to be a lot of psychiatrists giving the same diagnosis and yet so much disput over his mental health condition
He didn't mention voices when interviewed after arrest. That only came at his trial, and many suspect he came up with all the right stuff to try and get himself off the murder charges, due to diminished responsibility. It didn't work, but he did later get himself transferred to hospital after convincing enough people.
It was odd that not so long back he tried to claim he was better again, and wanted to go back to prison, where he could apply for parole!
He didn't mention voices when interviewed after arrest. That only came at his trial, and many suspect he came up with all the right stuff to try and get himself off the murder charges, due to diminished responsibility. It didn't work, but he did later get himself transferred to hospital after convincing enough people.
It was odd that not so long back he tried to claim he was better again, and wanted to go back to prison, where he could apply for parole!
No I know he didnt talk about the voices initially but what Im saying is by the time of the trial he had been diagnosed as schizophrenic by 4 different psychiatrists. The judge disagreed and wanted him tried for murder rather than the manslaughter he was pleading guilty to. Once convicted, he went to prison but was then diagnosed again with the same illness and transferred to hospital. So were all these psychiatrists fooled? Or did he just happen to have schizophrenia as well as being a sane murderer (it is possible)
No I know he didnt talk about the voices initially but what Im saying is by the time of the trial he had been diagnosed as schizophrenic by 4 different psychiatrists. The judge disagreed and wanted him tried for murder rather than the manslaughter he was pleading guilty to. Once convicted, he went to prison but was then diagnosed again with the same illness and transferred to hospital. So were all these psychiatrists fooled? Or did he just happen to have schizophrenia as well as being a sane murderer (it is possible)
I think he fooled them, although clearly he does have some issues!
It was interesting that he seemed to get batter when it was possible for him to apply for parole, but he had to be in prison for that.
I think the judge also made a bit of a mess when he gave him a minimum of 30 years instead of a whole life tariff.
I'm not sure he could give whole life back then. They had to give a tariff, and then it was for the Home Secretary to decide whether such a character could get parole once the tariff was up. That has all changed now, but they were safe in the knowledge at the time that no Home Secretary would allow the Yorkshire Ripper to go free. Hardly a vote winner.
I'm not sure he could give whole life back then. They had to give a tariff, and then it was for the Home Secretary to decide whether such a character could get parole once the tariff was up. That has all changed now, but they were safe in the knowledge at the time that no Home Secretary would allow the Yorkshire Ripper to go free. Hardly a vote winner.
Controlling in the home, perhaps, it was spotless. But she believed Peter whatever he said, and gave him alibis when he needed her to, no questions.
She was a very strange woman, probably still is. It's such an unusual situation, I don't think we'll ever get to the truth about Sonia.
Not sure, I read that the journalist Gordon Burn who wrote the book about him, said that she was prone to outbursts of rage and would need to be restrained by him and she would be very sharp and berate him in front of his family where he would just stop whatever he was doing if she told him so.
She also apparently was to have said that although not all of the women he murdered were prostitutes, some of them were 'behaving like prostitutes'.
Not sure, I read that the journalist Gordon Burn who wrote the book about him, said that she was prone to outbursts of rage and would need to be restrained by him and she would be very sharp and berate him in front of his family where he would just stop whatever he was doing if she told him so.
She also apparently was to have said that although not all of the women he murdered were prostitutes, some of them were 'behaving like prostitutes'.
That's all quite interesting, I've not read his book on Sutcliffe. Perhaps I should.
I've never believed he was insane, as such. He's not right in the head obviously, but he's as sane as they come.
I don't believe we have anything like a true idea from him of why he did what he did. I also wouldn't believe his claims of being the victim with Sonia without further evidence.
I've never believed he was insane, as such. He's not right in the head obviously, but he's as sane as they come.
I don't believe we have anything like a true idea from him of why he did what he did. I also wouldn't believe his claims of being the victim with Sonia without further evidence.
He is just another sexual psychopath, but more 'successful' than many in his 'career' of killing innocent women.
The motivations of Neilson or Dahmer are more interesting 'killing for company' and total control.
Comments
But is such psychological profiling such a great idea? Worked wonderfully well in the Rachel Nickell case didn't it?
Well I think it's just a tool in the detectives box, nothing more than that. If employed correctly, it might help in a case, but it's not a magic wand and it's probably a mistake to place too much emphasis on it. In 1888, and indeed in 1980 to a much lesser extent, the police didn't have as many tools in their box as they have today
Nothing is ever perfect but that doesnt mean as a theory it is not worthy of use.
Yes but fitting up the wrong person seems a bit extreme.
I doubt it, he was caught on DNA.
I don't believe Sutcliffe heard voices, for a minute. He had plenty of time to observe his wife's symptoms, though.
Agreed. I think Sonia was an irrelevance to him outside of her ability to confirm his alibis when he needed her to. She was the typical meek wife, always ready to believe and stick up for her husband.
He was very lucky to have her, I think. (if that's not too dark)
I keep seeing references to her being domineering and controlling of him, hardly the meek wife?
Relationships are more complex than that though. How many times have you seen the dominant one in a partnership, also turn out to be the needier one? We can never know the dynamics there, really so it's useless to speculate. But I have noticed, amongst couples I know, that sometimes the one who seems to call all the shots, is being enabled by the other, quieter person and sometimes it is that other person who has the real power.
So anything is possible.
Maybe the get-out clause that he was 'hearing voices' occurred to him, slowly and naturally, after observing her behaviours and that would make it marginally easier to live with what he was doing. If that makes sense? Ie: He wasn't entirely 'lying' about hearing voices... he was deceiving himself.
True, and Im also puzzled about the hearing voices thing. It was determined that he wasnt 'insane' when he committed the crimes but he was also diagnosed as schizophrenic at the time of his trial and later when he was sent to prison. So was he mentally ill or not. Seems to be a lot of psychiatrists giving the same diagnosis and yet so much disput over his mental health condition
He didn't mention voices when interviewed after arrest. That only came at his trial, and many suspect he came up with all the right stuff to try and get himself off the murder charges, due to diminished responsibility. It didn't work, but he did later get himself transferred to hospital after convincing enough people.
It was odd that not so long back he tried to claim he was better again, and wanted to go back to prison, where he could apply for parole!
No I know he didnt talk about the voices initially but what Im saying is by the time of the trial he had been diagnosed as schizophrenic by 4 different psychiatrists. The judge disagreed and wanted him tried for murder rather than the manslaughter he was pleading guilty to. Once convicted, he went to prison but was then diagnosed again with the same illness and transferred to hospital. So were all these psychiatrists fooled? Or did he just happen to have schizophrenia as well as being a sane murderer (it is possible)
I think he fooled them, although clearly he does have some issues!
It was interesting that he seemed to get batter when it was possible for him to apply for parole, but he had to be in prison for that.
I'm not sure he could give whole life back then. They had to give a tariff, and then it was for the Home Secretary to decide whether such a character could get parole once the tariff was up. That has all changed now, but they were safe in the knowledge at the time that no Home Secretary would allow the Yorkshire Ripper to go free. Hardly a vote winner.
Domineering?
Controlling in the home, perhaps, it was spotless. But she believed Peter whatever he said, and gave him alibis when he needed her to, no questions.
She was a very strange woman, probably still is. It's such an unusual situation, I don't think we'll ever get to the truth about Sonia.
Ah, OK, thanks.
Not sure, I read that the journalist Gordon Burn who wrote the book about him, said that she was prone to outbursts of rage and would need to be restrained by him and she would be very sharp and berate him in front of his family where he would just stop whatever he was doing if she told him so.
She also apparently was to have said that although not all of the women he murdered were prostitutes, some of them were 'behaving like prostitutes'.
That's all quite interesting, I've not read his book on Sutcliffe. Perhaps I should.
http://www.casebook.org/
Enjoy the Casebook as it makes fascinating reading.
he was a clever man, but his his well thought out killing kit speaks volumes.
I don't believe we have anything like a true idea from him of why he did what he did. I also wouldn't believe his claims of being the victim with Sonia without further evidence.
He is just another sexual psychopath, but more 'successful' than many in his 'career' of killing innocent women.
The motivations of Neilson or Dahmer are more interesting 'killing for company' and total control.