First Class

Just got official notification that I have completed my Honours program and have received a Class A grade (the highest possible).

"Are you sure this is a sci-fi convention? It's full of nerds!"

Thus spoke Homer. The relevance of that quote has to do with my new academic subject: science-fiction. I'm not giving up on Satanism, quite the opposite actually, it's going to become my main side-project. In the next few months I'll be preparing a number of different research papers derived from my thesis work. Some will be presented at conferences others submitted to journals.

While we're on the topic of Satanism there's something I'd like to point out; Anton LaVey has more than one book. If anyone is going to write something about him at least read his five major texts (Satanic Bible, Satanic Rituals, Satanic Witch, Devil's Notebook and Satan Speaks). You can learn a lot more about the man and his philosophy by looking at more than just the Satanic Bible.

Another note for prospective scholars and students: listing the Complete Idiots Guide to (random subject) or (random subject) For Dummies does not look good. This isn't a value judgment on the information these texts may contain, they are very good starting points when you don't know much about a certain topic. But when it comes time to write your essay you might consider what readers (or examiners) will think. You want to show you've done a good job on research and that won't happen if all you use is an introductory level book as a reference.

The same is usually said in regards to the use of encyclopedias and such. Yes, its easy to look up the Australian Dictionary of Biography and peruse a simple outline of Edmund Barton's life but that's something anyone can do. Being a scholar isn't always about convenience, it can be hard work finding those obscure sources and getting information beyond the basic details. At the end of it all you'll be happy that you put in that extra effort and acquired a solid understanding of the subject. It's no good claiming to have done extensive research if the proof isn't there.

Beware also of pseudo-histories and biased sources. Not everything you'll find will contain factual data. This is where you need to exercise a little source criticism; look for agendas, look for subjectivity, and try to find other reliable sources that corroborate its evidence. Sometimes books claiming to be historical records are at odds with other accounts. Again, look to see who's proven they've done their research and who is lacking in that area (or who has ulterior motives).

Happy Halloween

I was going to do a special Halloween post but I'm too busy with my thesis. Only three more days til its over.

Toowong Cemetery Tour

This weekend is the debut performance of my new heritage tour From the Temple to the Cauldron. Tales of the home front during WWI, the birth of Queensland, political dissidents and other digressions into the past...

Where: Toowong Cemetery (meet near office)

When: Sunday: 5 October, starts at 10:30am

Cost: gold coin donation to Friends of Toowong Cemetery

Back to Jack the Ripper: Serial killers and their M.O.

The Walter Porriott Ripper theories are still getting some media attention. The two main proponents of the theory have concluded that it is unlikely that he is the famed serial killer because "Porriott's modus operandi as a criminal conman, impersonator and fraudster is quite different from the modus operandi of Jack the Ripper." [quote from Paul Tully's blog on the topic]

This is a fair point to make and from what I know of Porriott's alleged actions it's quite correct. However, it should be noted that criminal conmen can be quite adaptive in terms of their manner of operation. The main case I'm thinking of is that of H. H. Holmes America's own first known serial killer. Homes (real name: Herman Mudgett) initially plied his trade at insurance fraud before building a hotel equipped with various means of killing unsuspecting residents. During the Chicago World's Fair of 1893 an unknown number of victims died within its walls. He also had quite a knack for seducing ladies and finding various ways to get their money (after having done so he killed and dismembered them).

The specific episode in Holmes history that is pertinent to this discussion is his final arrest in Boston on November 17 1894. Initially the authorities were unaware that he had committed any offense worse than theft. When a search for three children who had been in his care resulted in the discovery of their bodies it became apparent that the charming suave man who had befriended his captors was not what he seemed. The subsequent discovery of Holmes now-legendary "murder castle" in Chicago demonstrated the methodical planning and extent of his infamous crimes.

The point of citing the case of Homes is thus: the modus operandi (M.O.) of a criminal is not always as simple as can be believed. Not every conman or sociopath sticks to a script. As one former FBI profiler put it, "criminal psychopaths are criminally versatile." Holmes seems to have been more of a pragmatist (using methods that had worked well on previous occasions and would avoid drawing suspicion) rather than an obsessive compulsive personality type. He also masked his true nature with a sane and respectable veneer. Something which Porriott may also have done.

While we're on the topic of Saucy Jack's M.O. there are a few other comments that should be made. Firstly, some doubt that Mary Kelly's murder (9 November 1888) was committed by the Ripper for the very fact that it is in many ways inconsistent with the other four. She was younger than the other victims being approximately 25 (the other four victims were in their 40s) and she was found not on the street but inside of her lodgings. Additionally, her murder was over a month after that of the previous victim, Catherine Eddowes (30 September 1888).

It seems odd that a killer who had committed murders with such regularity (31 August, 8 September, and the 'double event' of 30 September) would suddenly stop. One possible reason is that he was incarcerated during that period and was therefore unable to do anything until he was released. If this is the case then it may help to further explain the severity of the wounds he inflicted on Kelly's body. Coupled with the privacy of the occasion the killer may have had both the ability and inclination to be more extreme seeing as he had to wait so long for the opportunity.

Conversely, it is possible that the original killer (the true Jack the Ripper) had already stopped and that this was a crime that was influenced by his work. Perhaps someone else having heard about Jack's crimes in the media decided to commit a similar act or make it appear that Kelly was a Ripper victim so that they themselves would not be suspected. Tantalizingly, Kelly and her lover had recently split up because he objected to her allowing other prostitutes to stay in her room. They had separated in late August or early September but he had been visiting her on a daily basis after this. They were heard to argue on the evening of 30 October. This places both the lover and any potential boarders into suspicion as well.

Much of Porriott's candidacy rests on the fact he is supposed to have been in the area during all the crimes and left on the same day that Kelly's body was discovered. A man seen with Kelly on the night is described as being in his mid thirties and the rest of the witness statement seems at odds with the idea that 18 year old Porriott was the killer. The time of death was placed at around 4:00am as this was when others in the vicinity say they heard a cry of, "Murder!" (which wasn't an unusual occurrence for the time and place and thus wasn't reacted to). The time of Porriott's departure is not specified by the theories proponents so it is difficult to further speculate on whether it fits within a plausible time frame whereby he could have killed, cleaned up and boarded the vessel without being noticed (note here that the substantial and methodical mutilations imply that some time was spent with the body).

As I have said before Porriott was not the only person to have left the area following Kelly's death (remember, the killer need not of left the country or even remained alive after this time) and he certainly was not the only person around during the murder period. Nothing much seems to make him any more likely a suspect than everyone else who was there at the time. Even his supposed misogyny being a factor rests solely on assumptions that the Ripper killed because he hated women or prostitutes. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't hate men he just wanted a docile and obliging partner who could never leave him. Even so, he killed seventeen men. The choice of victims may be due more to pragmatic reasons, the victims were vulnerable women who would go alone to a secluded place on the streets with a client. Moreover, their deaths were unlikely to raise the same kind of attention as that of a more high profile victim. Similarly, Dahmer preyed on the vulnerable elements of society and that is why no one even suspected that a serial killer living among them.

One should also point out that we know about as much about the Ripper's motive as we do about the Ripper himself (I keep saying 'him' but I should point out that there are Jill the Ripper theories as well). Something which makes it harder to narrow down the list of suspects.

Just as Holmes' crimes went largely unnoticed due to the civil chaos of the World's Fair so too did the Ripper slip into the shadows of the zeitgeist.

...May all the victims of killers past and present rest in peace...