Like I said if its the same guy you're on about then its not really convincing. But interesting all the same.
On a slightly different tack. There was a psychologist being interviewed on the radio last week, and he looked at the brain scans and other data from psychopaths to see if he could spot any trends. He reckoned that there were certain aspects that they shared in common. As a control, he included details of non-psychopaths in a way that meant it wasn't obvious whose data was whose. On checking, one profile scored the highest on most tests, and it turned it was the psychologists own data. He did some digging, and found that 7 of his ancestors had been murderers, and Lizzie Borden was another.
I did say iIrc. Experts you say. Like someone with a background and indeed a degree in criminology and psychology and has studied the ripper case for a number of years. Hhmm indeed.
I seem to remember (iIrc) that a significant proportion of serial killers have had some kind of brain injury, like being dropped on their head or a blow of somekind. I'm no expert mind. Indeed.
On the Ripper and crime forums, I do find it funny to see lay people applying logical argument and reasoning when discussing what a psychpoath would or wouldn't do in some very specific situations. They say things like "if that was me, I would have ran away" but nobody seems to ask if they would have also just viscerated a young lady and slit her throat.
I've seen similar arguments, but I've also seen other experts rebuke them. The danger with labelling is we could all have the trait, but it may never manifest. A cow has four legs, but not all four legged animals are cows. The psychologist that found he was potentially the most likely psychopath in his group, suggested he didn't actively become one because of the love he received from his mother. I guess it 'unbanged' his head.
I should have said head injury coupled with other factors such as for eg mother issues/abuse/abandonment etc.
I saw a programme where a psychologist was arguing we shouldn't be looking at what makes some people killers, but what prevents the rest of us doing it.
Serial killers specifically? As there are many types of killers and indeed different reasons why 'ordinary' people kill.
From memory, it was about all of us. I think it referred to situations like war, and other occasions when we're liable to kill.
Sounds interesting. There will be different reasons why 'ordinary' people kill depending on the circumstances and also the individual. But serial killers are different to these people.
Are serial killers different to each other too? Whenever I see a profile, it just seems to be 'social miss-fit, loves his mam".
Serial killers do kill for different reasons to each other. They are just a small minority of killers though. But probably get the most publicity.
Are there different degrees? I recall watching something about soldiers on active duty, and most just fired in the general direction of the enemy, and conciously or sub-conciously aimed to miss, but a percentage knew exactly how many enemy they had killed. I forget which label these were given.
Thought it was proven a short while ago it was a Polish guy, they matched his DNA on a Shawl worn by a victim
She wasn't a full shilling. However, her dad had an illegitimate son, apparently. He was a butcher and there's a theory that he could have been the killer, and not Lizzie.
