Serial Killer in Ipswich, England

[gtc]

Five women appear to have been killed by the same person in recent weeks in the town of Ipswich in Suffolk, England.

This article lists the predictions about the killer made by Joseph Diaz, associate professor of criminology at Fayetteville State University, North Carolina.

His predictions (and his confidence level) include:

• Male (definately);
• Late 20s or early 30s (likely);
• Will commit suicide, move from the area or get caught (likely);
• Will try to kill again (belief);
• Won't dump bodies close to home;
• Will find more victims dumped in other areas, perhaps even some years ago (suspicion);
• From Ipswich or the surrounding area, or commutes there (clearly);
• He is of above-average intelligence (suggested by dumping in water);
• Dumps bodies in water as it is significant symbolically (alternatively);
• Had sex, or tried to have sex with some of his victims (possibility);
• Sexually impotent, hence strangulation (probable);
• Not in a stable relationship with a woman (likely);
• Virgin (quite possible);
• Likes younger women;
• Dominant mother (strongly suggestive);

It will be interesting to see how many of his predictions are bourne out by the evidence (sooner rather than later I hope).

By the way I think I have the list right, it can be hard to gauge the author's confidence in his predictions just from a newspaper article. I apologise if there is an existing thread, I couldn't find one through the search function.

 

[chillzero]

These are not predictions.
These are educated suggestions about the killer from a man whose job is to study this type of person.

I can't open the article, but you gave the relevant information yourself - "Diaz, associate professor of criminology".

Nothing paranormal, and actually, it seems to be a bit of a stereotype, for those who have an interest in this area.

 

[Larry Lovage]

Even so, I myself find that it's possible that too much confidence is placed in the opinions of criminal psychologists. After the TV series Cracker, one TV company followed a criminal psychologist around for a documentary called something like The Real Cracker. I caught a few minutes of it, and this guy was moving his head in a really strange way while he was talking, and I figured out that he simply did not look anybody in the eye whom he was talking to. I was like, "Psychologist, heal thyself!"

I suspect that the nostrums of criminal psychologists are followed with no real empirical basis than graphology... or mediums! Invariably they will say that a serial killer is a white male. You don't even need statistical studies to make that guess. And if it's wrong, it's just the exception that proves the rule.

I don't think the Suffolk Strangler (as he is now being called) will turn out to be a lonely virgin. Peter Sutcliffe was a family man, and so (horrifically) was Fred West. There's no particular evidence that he likes younger women, all the girls he has killed are working prostitutes, and older ones are both rarer and more experienced (and thus able to handle themselves better).

Will commit suicide, move from the area or get caught (likely);

What kind of prediction is that??

 

[Ersby]

• Won't dump bodies close to home;
• From Ipswich or the surrounding area, or commutes there (clearly);

These two seem to be contradictory.

 

[Big Les]

Watching the coverage of this over the last few days and hearing various pronouncements and speculations, I've also been struck by the apparent similarity (or at least parallel) between criminal psychology and psychic predictions. Clearly they aren't directly comparable, and you can spot trends in behaviour by studying past cases and psych profiles. But you surely can't predict anything meaningful with any reliability?

As for having sex with victims, I thought it had been established with the first two at least, that the victims had not been sexually assaulted. The radio this morning mentioned rumours that the bodies had been shaved, but if true that's quite a different thing.

Others are speculating that this is not a serial murderer at all, but the work of criminals fighting a prostitution and drugs turf war. Should that guess turn out to be accurate, crim psychs are going to look a bit silly.

But I admit to ignorance here as to the sound basis to criminal psychology, specifically psych profiling, as a useful detecting tool.

 

[Cuddles]

Watching the coverage of this over the last few days and hearing various pronouncements and speculations, I've also been struck by the apparent similarity (or at least parallel) between criminal psychology and psychic predictions. Clearly they aren't directly comparable, and you can spot trends in behaviour by studying past cases and psych profiles. But you surely can't predict anything meaningful with any reliability?

Of course there are similarities, they both do exactly the same thing - warm reading. The difference is that a psycologist admits they are doing this, has years of training and is held accountable, while a psychic claims to be psychic, doesn't actually care if they are right or not and blames anything that goes wrong either on the sitter or on the spirits.

You certainly can predict meaningful things. Serial killers are most likely to be young, white males, which is useful to know so you know who to look for. Someone is unlikely to drive for hours regularly to kill people, so it is likely to be someone from the area, but also unlikely for the bodies to be too near their home, which is also clearly useful information. It may not seem like rocket science to work these things out, but someone needs to have responsibility to do so, and to work out if they are actually true in this case. It may not be incredibly reliable, but you are much more likely to get results if you know you are probably looking for a white man in Suffolk and not wasting your time investigating black women in Yorkshire.

 

[Big Les]

Fair enough; I don't want to cast unwarranted aspertions. The parallels are at least interesting though. If the two things seem related from reading media articles, it's probably because of the simplification and spin applied to press reporting, which would tend to narrow the gap in terms of presentational style and implied accuracy/significance. In other words articles (and ignorance on the part of the reader) can make it look as though the contributor is trying to look as though they are making a set-in-stone prediction as would a "psychic".

Re the sex aspect; the article actually says that the killer may have done so "in the past", as in, he may be a former client. He hasn't implied sexual assault as such; my bad there.

So if I understand correctly, criminal profiling of this sort is essentially a (professional) marshalling of known facts and extrapolation into educated guesses that might just help catch the killer. And as you say, the crucial differences are in honesty and intent; I'm sure both are beyond reproach in this case.

 

[a_unique_person]

Five women appear to have been killed by the same person in recent weeks in the town of Ipswich in Suffolk, England.

This article lists the predictions about the killer made by Joseph Diaz, associate professor of criminology at Fayetteville State University, North Carolina.

His predictions (and his confidence level) include:

• Male (definately);
• Late 20s or early 30s (likely);
• Will commit suicide, move from the area or get caught (likely);
• Will try to kill again (belief);
• Won't dump bodies close to home;
• Will find more victims dumped in other areas, perhaps even some years ago (suspicion);
• From Ipswich or the surrounding area, or commutes there (clearly);
• He is of above-average intelligence (suggested by dumping in water);
• Dumps bodies in water as it is significant symbolically (alternatively);
• Had sex, or tried to have sex with some of his victims (possibility);
• Sexually impotent, hence strangulation (probable);
• Not in a stable relationship with a woman (likely);
• Virgin (quite possible);
• Likes younger women;
• Dominant mother (strongly suggestive);

It will be interesting to see how many of his predictions are bourne out by the evidence (sooner rather than later I hope).

By the way I think I have the list right, it can be hard to gauge the author's confidence in his predictions just from a newspaper article. I apologise if there is an existing thread, I couldn't find one through the search function.

Sounds like Colin Wilson in the Sun, and his predictions based on past research into serial killers. Several of these are standard predictions, others based on his MO, the rest just stabs in the dark to see if he gets lucky.

 

[carcharodon]

These two seem to be contradictory.

Well he could be from the northern part of Ipswich of the northern outlying areas. None of the bodies were dumped north of Ipswich.

 

[tkingdoll]

While some of it does appear to be educated guesswork, there is one reason why profiling has increased in usage by the police: it works. Cases have been solved because of the information given by the psychologist.

The most interesting murder cases in the UK (including the Wests) were handled by Paul Britton. Morbid anecdote from his book: Upon arriving at the Cromwell St house, he was asked by the police why the bodies were buried by the Wests in their own garden. He replied "because the house is full."

Ew!

He's the man who the character of Cracker is based on, actually. A lot of his cases read like "obvious guesses" but there are situations that are too specific and dangerous for the layman to be able to make a judgment on, for example predicting the actions of a blackmailer or kidnapper.

 

[Larry Lovage]

Paul Britton - that's the guy. Won't look in your eyes when he talks to you. nutterrrrrr!!!!

 

[Moochie]

Five women appear to have been killed by the same person in recent weeks in the town of Ipswich in Suffolk, England.

This article lists the predictions about the killer made by Joseph Diaz, associate professor of criminology at Fayetteville State University, North Carolina.

His predictions (and his confidence level) include:

• Male (definately);
• Late 20s or early 30s (likely);
• Will commit suicide, move from the area or get caught (likely);
• Will try to kill again (belief);
• Won't dump bodies close to home;
• Will find more victims dumped in other areas, perhaps even some years ago (suspicion);
• From Ipswich or the surrounding area, or commutes there (clearly);
• He is of above-average intelligence (suggested by dumping in water);
• Dumps bodies in water as it is significant symbolically (alternatively);
• Had sex, or tried to have sex with some of his victims (possibility);
• Sexually impotent, hence strangulation (probable);
• Not in a stable relationship with a woman (likely);
• Virgin (quite possible);
• Likes younger women;
• Dominant mother (strongly suggestive);

It will be interesting to see how many of his predictions are bourne out by the evidence (sooner rather than later I hope).

By the way I think I have the list right, it can be hard to gauge the author's confidence in his predictions just from a newspaper article. I apologise if there is an existing thread, I couldn't find one through the search function.

Your point being?

M.

 

[Moochie]

Even so, I myself find that it's possible that too much confidence is placed in the opinions of criminal psychologists. After the TV series Cracker, one TV company followed a criminal psychologist around for a documentary called something like The Real Cracker. I caught a few minutes of it, and this guy was moving his head in a really strange way while he was talking, and I figured out that he simply did not look anybody in the eye whom he was talking to. I was like, "Psychologist, heal thyself!"

I suspect that the nostrums of criminal psychologists are followed with no real empirical basis than graphology... or mediums! Invariably they will say that a serial killer is a white male. You don't even need statistical studies to make that guess. And if it's wrong, it's just the exception that proves the rule.

I don't think the Suffolk Strangler (as he is now being called) will turn out to be a lonely virgin. Peter Sutcliffe was a family man, and so (horrifically) was Fred West. There's no particular evidence that he likes younger women, all the girls he has killed are working prostitutes, and older ones are both rarer and more experienced (and thus able to handle themselves better).

What kind of prediction is that??

Criminologists call on historical MOs, and they have much history to go on. Nothing woo involved.

You could possibly make similar calls, were you not so jaundiced.

M.

 

[Azrael 5]

So far no mention of mediums/psychics in this case.Can't seeing it lasting.

 

[Lothian]

I suspect the hit rate will be high as the predictions are very similar to those made by cold reading psychics. They are vague and offer many alternative ‘outs’ which can show the prediction to be correct, even when it appears it was wrong. Consider the following:-

Late 20s or early 30s (likely)

Although he was 45 he looked/acted younger.

Will commit suicide, move from the area or get caught (likely);

Great prediction. It can only be proved wrong if the killer lives doesn’t get caught and does not move. How will we know ? We will only know if the prediction comes true.

Will try to kill again (belief);

If he doesn’t then there is the ‘out’ that he did try but there was always too many witnesses.

Won't dump bodies close to home

define home as the killers house and you are fairly safe. Even if bodies are found there the answer is that the killer was going to dump them elsewhere later.

Will find more victims dumped in other areas, perhaps even some years ago (suspicion);

Didn’t find any. “Well you will they are still out there.”
Etc.

 

[Bikewer]

The much-vaunted "profiler" units in the FBI complained some years back that the discipline was of limited use, as the profiles of serial killers like the fellow above are all so similar.

 

[sophia8]

Paul Britton - that's the guy. Won't look in your eyes when he talks to you. nutterrrrrr!!!!

He's also the 'expert' who messed up the Rachel Nickell case by setting the police on a man who had nothing to do with the murder.

 

[Moochie]

The much-vaunted "profiler" units in the FBI complained some years back that the discipline was of limited use, as the profiles of serial killers like the fellow above are all so similar.

It's an art, as much as a science, insofar as it relies on facts to arrive at a profile.

Profilers, as far as I know, have never been "vaunted," let alone "much vaunted." Profiling's a tool, nothing more. But then you knew that, didn't you?

M.

 

[tkingdoll]

Demographics are fairly useless, as many serial killers fit the same one (age, for example, in this case, doesn't tell us anything). But profilers often come up with useful information outside of that, for example if the killer is likely to already be known to police for petty crimes like flashing, etc.

In the case of blackmail (for example when a large baby food company had a saboteur), the psychologist can pretty accurately predict how the blackmailer will react to specific actions (paying, not paying, media coverage, etc) which is extremely useful.

Sure, there are going to be misses too and the occasional bad mistake, but police resources are very, very limited and if profiling didn't get results, they simply would not use it.

Also, don't forget the consultant psychologist will have given the police far more information than the media have been allowed to see.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sure, there are going to be misses too and the occasional bad mistake, but police resources are very, very limited and if profiling didn't get results, they simply would not use it.

(cough) Then why do people believe in psychics, homeopathy, etc.? (cough)