|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Liz G
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | 
|
I am giving and analysis speech on Jack the Ripper and I am in need of some common misconceptions concerning Jack the Ripper? Can anyone help me? Thanks so much! |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 933
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:28 am: |
|
Of course the most common misconception is that Jack the Ripper was a 'sexual serial killer'.
(ducks down quickly to avoid the cross-fire). |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 871
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:36 am: |
|
AP,
I think she means misconceptions that are generally accepted. I think that one you refer to is your own opinion although part of me agrees with you.
I think the biggest one is that he was a wealthy doctor of some kind who rode around Whitechapel in a carriage carrying a case of knives. I'm sure this is a common misconception but then maybe it is my opinion. It's quite hard to tell.
Sarah |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 1:30 pm: |
|
I guessed that, Sarah, but just couldn't help myself.
There are so many accepted misconceptions that I thought it might be fun to start off with a misconception that was not generally accepted.
If I was giving a talk I'd rather hit them with something taken right off the wall, rather than spoon feeding them the same old porrage and then watching it dry on their chins.
Personally I think the biggest misconception is that he wrote a diary. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1270
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 2:20 pm: |
|
I agree with Sarah, that the biggest general misconception about Jack the Ripper is that he was a doctor, wearing a top hat and a doctor's bag full of surgeon knives.
(Duck, AP...) 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:58 pm: |
|
Hi Everybody,
I think a big misconception would be that Jack was Left Handed.
(DO I NEED TO DUCK OR NOT?)
Paul |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 10:13 am: |
|
I think the old top hat gladstone knife containing bag (though???)
ps Paul I don't see any reason to duck!!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 4:27 pm: |
|
G'day Liz,
When you give your speech, hold up an illustration of the Ripper generated in the press, (look at 'Punch', Sept 29th, 1888, and Oct 13 1888), (or someone else may find a better one of the Ripper looking like a monster). (look through the UK press reports by clicking on 'Press Reports' in the menu on the far-left).
The doctor with a gladstone knife and black bag image is a good example of how I feel the press caused the public to be on the lookout for someone who stood out as an obvious monster. All the murderer had to do was try to appear normal and harmless.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 4:35 pm: |
|
G'day,
That's why I think the real murderer was a commoner, not a prince, not a doctor, not a famous artist, or someone who lived outside the area and popped in on the murder dates, but someone who had lived in Whitechapel/Spitalfields all his life, and blended in.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on March 13, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2213
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 5:48 pm: |
|
I think one of the most popular misconceptions is that he killed in the fog, whereas there was no fog - unless he smoked extremely foul cigars.
Robert |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Yes, the fog is a big misconception, but it adds so much mystique to it...dont ya think?
Paul |
M. Morgan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 6:23 am: |
|
I suspect the biggest misconceptions about JTR are
a) it was a "fact" he was a doctor, which has never been proven (other possibilities for acquiring anatomical knowledge exist beyond medicine);
b) that he was "obviously" mad. To a certainty, JTR was quite disturbed, but I think it is also clearly possible that he could have functioned as a "normal" person at certain times. It seems to be a Victorian thing to assume that people were "observably" mad.
I also agree about the "certainty" JTR was left handed is questionable, though widely believed. It seems the present literature notes there are several ways to have killed the victims without being "behind" them and slitting the throat while standing, as is most commonly believed. |
B. Winkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 9:59 pm: |
|
The biggest misconception is that nothing evidenciary fits together. In fact, all the evidence does.
A?R Bullwinkle
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 232
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 10:21 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
You wrote:
“…whereas there was no fog - unless he smoked extremely foul cigars.”
Or clay pipes, perhaps?
Frank 
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2216
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Frank, oh no, not poor old Joe!
Paul, yes, I like fog.
Robert |
Brandon Krogh
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 11:11 pm: |
|
Hello Liz,
One fairly common misconception which strikes me is that Jack must have been highly intelligent to elude capture. Anyone having intimate knowledge of Whitecapel and even a modicum of street smarts would've had a formidable advantage over the average P.C. patrolling his allotted beat. |
Neale Carter
Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 49
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Another common one I have come across is some variation of the "Royal Conspiracy" - either
Duke of Clarence, Dr. Gull or a combination of the two. Some people also mix in a bit of Jekyll & Hyde for good measure!
Regards
Neale |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 869
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Hi Liz, All,
A common misconception in life is that if you pour enough scorn today on anything that sounds like a mad concept, this will somehow diminish any faint chance that it could otherwise have thrived and gone on to prove correct tomorrow.
When it comes to the ripper case, most students would claim to feel utterly secure in the knowledge that today’s nut holding its ground will not be tomorrow’s mighty oak. We wouldn’t need to go in for diminishing exercises for our own sakes, would we? Any scorn poured on the various ripper ‘nuts’ must surely come from the selfless desire to protect the history books, and the public, from contamination by what every ripper student worth his salt can recognise instantly as the most patent nonsense.
But could this be just another popular misconception? Which of the most scornful ripper students care wholly and exclusively about the damage a single nut might conceivably do to the truth if the scorn were to let up for a second? And which of them would not feel seriously embarrassed if the unthinkable happened, and they had to admit that one of the nuts had shown them the truth and they had utterly failed to recognise it?
Love,
Caz
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 266
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Based upon the popularity of some "suspects", apparently the biggest misconception is that Jack had to be in London in order to commit the crimes!
- Jeff |
Brandon Krogh
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 3:40 am: |
|
Another common misconception and one I'm sure
we're all grateful for is that after 116 years
we know all there we'll ever know about the
Whitechapel murders and if the case hasn't been
cracked yet then it never will. Thanks to the
interest that this case still generates, and the
tireless, diligent research of a diverse group
of people, there have been many interesting and
intriguing finds in recent years such as the
Littlechild letter or the photograph of Annie
Chapman in younger, happier times.
Brandon |
Saucy Adam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:35 pm: |
|
How about the misconception that Jack the Ripper wasn't a real person but who is a villain of modern folklore, kind of like Bluebeard? That's what most of the people I talk to believe? They usually ask "So Jack the Ripper was a real guy?"
P.S. Jack not a sexual serial killer? Not that I agree or disagree just curious to know what else he might have been. |
Avril Ford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 10:23 am: |
|
Leanne
if Jack the Ripper was a commoner then why was inspector Abberline quoted as saying befors his death "It wasnt a butcher, Yid or foreign skipper, as he was supposed to be..... you'd have to look for him not at the bottom of London society at the time but a long way up" |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Interesting thread - but where to begin?
When friends of mine who know about my interest in the case (most of them by now know better than to mention it!!) ask or comment, it is surprising how consistent the misconceptions are. Of the ones I have heard I would say the most common, No 1 being by far the most common in my experience.
1) There is some (usually unspecified) connection with the British Royal family. Considering that Stowell's theory did not start to gain currency until 1970, it is amazing how pervasive the idea of a Royal connection has become
2) There was (or some say still is) a high level cover up - the authorities knew the Ripper's identity
3) Related to (2), there is hidden away somewhere a secret file with conslusive proof of the Ripper's identity contained therein
4) I would agree with the melodrama villain image being very widespread - silk top hat, opera cape, black bagetc.
5) Another common misconception in my experience is that it is generally accepted (or some version even proven) that some or all of the Ripper letters actually came from the killer and contain information that only he could have known
6) Also common is the belief (and TV and films are the source of this) that his victims were big hearted, big bosomed Cockney girls dressed in silk bustles and feather boas
7) This one may be more contentious, but I think it is a misconception that the police of the time handled the case with utter incompetence and ineptitude.
I'm sure there are more but hopes this helps for the present
Chris |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 18
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 4:00 pm: |
|
For Glenn Anderssen:
My drinking buddy,Mr. Glenn A., replied to a post on another thread,regarding my contention that JTR was not a sexual serial killer.
Glenn provided me with 4 examples of sexual serial killers, after I asked him to see if he could name a sexual serial killer who did NOT have penetration sex with his victims, as this is my bone of contention with the whole sexual serial killer categorization.
All 4 of the men [ Bill Suff...Jeffrey Dahmer...Gary Ridgeway...and John Armstrong] DID have penetration,either oral and/or anal/vaginally.....Their stories are all on Crime Library, with statements within each monster's story that back this up. [www.crimelibrary.com ]
Perhaps Glenn misunderstood my original question. Is there a sexual serial killer in history that committed sexual-serial killings without any sort of penetration??
Mr.Scott Suttar added commentary to the thread.
From Mr. Suttar's post...
"In fact most sexual serial killers get their
kick from having power over the opposite sex."- unquote.
I could not agree more as a layman. POWER is the key word. In fact,power over others is the BASE,ground floor,reason for virtually every crime and in particular,serial killing.
However,in stating that there does not need to be sexual contact[ the oral,anal,vaginal examples above] by the culprit to have it classified as a sexual serial killing, presents a problem. The problem is that we assess the murder[s] by type of victim and location of violation. We cannot ALWAYS gauge one serial killer by another's criteria...Despite the far and few between occult-based murders,they do happen. They involve eviscerations without sexual contact. They have and do exist and none of them were sexually based [ although doubtless,the perpetrators did get aroused ] in categorization.
"Despite our lack of evidence it is clear that
Jack was definately a sexually motivated killer, he did not however
need to have sex with his victims to make him one."---from Mr. Suttar's post.
Scott is correct that there was no evidence of sexual contact, in any of the canonical victims' murders.. Not disparaging Scott for his opinion,which I respect highly from perusing the boards,we don't know with certainty if the Whitechapel Murders were the work of a sexual serial killer or the anomalic-power motivated-hocus pocus-occult type. In any event,the Ripper was a no good schnook.
In the long run....it doesn't really matter if he was a ssk or an occultist. He's dead and to date, unfound...The only reason I brought this up was that sometimes we all take things for granted,within this and any case. In fact,there's a story in this month's Ripper Notes that touches on an evisceration murder in my hometown.
I fully acknowledge that I may be and those who feel like I do,could very well be wrong. That old Occam's Razor swings very close to our collective occult-theorist neck.
I hope to hear from you both,Glenn and Scott,if you wish to continue this thread....or anyone that feels like I do.
Until then.....drink like a frigging fish ! Cheers and Skoal !! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1976
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Hey Howard!
I nearly missed you. Thanks for the mail.
What!??? Were there penetration in connection with Bill Suff and Gary Ridgway???
Hmmm... I am really getting dusty on things here.
OK, well. My mistake. I should have chosen some other examples, then. Rats!
Anyway, for what it's worth, I agree with Scotty.
There are no evidence whatsoever regarding an occult background to the Whitechapel murders; this notion was not favoured by the police at them time and no similar cases that I know of have such a connection -- I expect one can find one or two, that is always possible, but those are incredibly rare.
I can't find any symbols or occult designs in the Ripper murders and as I see it, such alleged signs are there simply because one wants to see them. (No offense, friend.)
But you are of course entitled to your opinion.
However. d'Onston's involvement is fairly circumstancial and there is really nothing that links him to the murders.
"That old Occam's Razor swings very close to our collective occult-theorist neck."
Hehe... not in my world, Howard.
Not in my world.
All the best
P.S. It's my round now at the bar, isn't it?
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 20
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 7:05 pm: |
|
Yo Glenn...
My esteemed friend...you said:
"I can't find any symbols or occult designs in the Ripper murders and as I see it, such alleged signs are there simply because one wants to see them."
Thats correct...YOU can't see them. That doesn't mean that they aren't there.
You and I both agree that Victorian society placed little regard to occult crimes....and for good reason. There weren't many to refer to.
You and I both agree that that the parameters of criminal investigation in 1888 would never consider some misfit,albeit a highly intelligent misfit,would actually endeavor to attain some sort of supernatural gift,by eviscerating the Canonical 5...
Most of the bored children of middle class American kids that get involved with Vampirism perform acts that defy rationalizing...but they do. D'onston was perhaps no different. A bored misfit sort.
Not being a smart ass,but I'll wait for anyone to show me a sexual serial killer that didn't have actual sex with their victims.
Glenn....You know whats next,my friend....
|
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:01 pm: |
|
Well, Glenn, for the most part we tend to view several aspects of these murders in a similar fashion. However, it appears this thread is questioning the general assumption that Jack WAS a 'SSK'.
I met this assumption head on a couple of years ago with several contributors who were adamant that the assumption was correct.
I can't agree, if anyone tells me in an assertive tone that Jack was a SSK, I response with "no, that is wrong".
If anyone tells me they believe he may have been, then yes, I would agree. The difference may be insignificant to most but the basic fact remains we only THINK he was, we most certainly do not know what he was, or his motives.
AND, if the murder of Kelly was really not by JtR, then the argument of him being a SSK is severely weakened.
To say he 'may have been', is correct, he may have been lots of things.
To say he 'was' is incorrect.
We only 'know' certain murders were the result of sexual motives because the perpetrator confessed.
Best Regards, Jon |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 155
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:33 pm: |
|
Hello there Chaps.
Take a look at this LINK and see what you think. Howard I concede that it does state that most of the killers studied did have sex with their victims, but I think it also enforces what I was saying regarding control and power being the key element.
I won't fully disagree with your occult theories Howard as I still think there are elements of masonic ritual in the killings. (I just ducked!)
PS: I definately deserve this promotion to Inspector don't you think?
Scotty.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 193
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 4:27 am: |
|
As far as I know the BTK Strangler didn't have "actual sex" with his victims. The reports I read stated that he masturbated near some of the bodies though, which indicates a sex-based motive.
The problem with coming up with many examples is that I could go find a case of someone called a SSK by the experts and point to it as one not involving actual sex, but then it could be easily dismissed as not really being a SSK because it didn't involve sex. It's kind of a circular argument.
So what if the BTK Strangler had started his series in the modern day, knowing about DNA tests, and decided to wait until he left the crime scene to get himself off? Then I could name him as a SSK that didn't have actual sex but people who didn't trust the SSK description would just say, well, there's no proof he did it for sexual reasons.
Or, more to the point of this site, if the killer did his attacks in a populated area and couldn't just indulge himself at the crime scenes and so waited until he got home, then it wouldn't look like a SSK to those who want obvious sexual components in their SSKs, while it would still be called SSK by those who trust the normal criteria.
The motives are exactly the same whether the killer does his thing on site or waits until he gets home, the only difference being how easy it is to prove it.
Interviews with killers that created the term SSK in the first place clearly indicate that they can do things that aren't considered sexual to normal people but have great sexual meaning to them. Some of those things include otherwise meaningless mutilations and taking trophies.
The Jack the Ripper case fits squarely within all the criteria used in describing a sexual serial killer, so it's a very logical conclusion. It's not the only possible conclusion, but it is a pretty reasonable one.
From the occult end, many of the things about the Jack the Ripper case fit squarely within the description of occult crimes as well. Other things do if you accept certain conclusions that I'm not convinced on yet. Others seem to me to point a little bit away from the idea.
Let me add here that occult crimes haven't been researched and standardized as well as many others, and some of the attempts to do so seem extremely biased one way or another. Until we get a good systematic study it's hard to nail down what the range of occult crimes looks like.
Based upon my current knowledge and interpretations, I don't see anything ruling out sex-based or occult-based motives (or a mixture of both, as many occult-based rituals are sexual in origin, so the two would combine fairly easily) in the Whitechapel murders. There are other possibilities too that I don't rule out. Based upon the number of SSKs we know about these days, odds are good that Jack was one too. Of course odds only tell you in general how likely something was, not whether it really happened or not.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 22
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 4:40 pm: |
|
If I had half the brains of Dan Norder, I would have said what is said above. Its gold.
Scott...Don't duck,brother !!! Its a valid
theory that needs to be explored. Get in touch with Garry Ross about Masonic links [ damned if I can find his address though !!! ]if you can...
P.S. Jon: Where you able to contact our portly pal on the Isle of Wight ?? Thanks for chipping in to the thread !!! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1984
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 5:22 pm: |
|
I agree. Dan's post was a good one.
It shall of course be noted, that when one is studying crimes in this category, one usually refers to what we emprically know from other documented serial murders. And seen in the light of those, there really aren't that many that involves black magic or something similar. However, even in connection with sexual serial killers -- and also Jack Ripper -- we can find ritualistic features. They don't necessarily origin from black magic or the occult, although some killers claim that they have comitted their crimes in some sort of religiuos mania.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 425
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 6:25 pm: |
|
A good example of what Dan mentions (SSK who doesn't masterbate at the crime scene) is David Berkowitz (sp?: Son of Sam). He apparently would masterbate at home, or return to his crime scenes later (at night) and masterbate while remembering his crimes.
Of course, the only reason we "know" this is from his telling people this is what he did. To the extent that one trusts what he says he did, then he fits as a SSK, who did not have actual sex with his victims (in fact, he interacted with them about as little as is physically possible; he just aimed and shot). He's probably the best example I can think of off the top of my head where a SSK delays gratification until after leaving the crime scene.
Of course, his minimal interaction in his killings parallels his minimal interaction in terms of the sex as well. Although he did attack one person with a knife, but found it unpleasant and too risky. BTK is a bit closer to JtR in that his killings were much more up close and personal than were Son of Sam's.
- Jeff |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 23
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 6:41 pm: |
|
Dear Jeff...Re your post above, would it be entirely accurate to classify Dave Berkowitz as an SSK ?
Accepting the view that he worked alone [ and not part of a coterie of like-minded whackos, like John " Wheaties" Carr, among others, that some have also theorized ], wouldn't his catalog of crimes be more accurately classified as a "spree killer", with perhaps a touch of Satanism thrown in ?
Thanks....
For my drinking buddy,Glenn...Great post yourself !! You know what comes next.....
Scott...Thanks a lot for that link ! Its very interesting. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1985
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Howard buddy,
Regarding Berkowitz, it is true that there -- from what he claims himself -- was Satanism or at least religious hallucinations involved. If that really is corresponding with the truth, we will never know. He has later claimed that the main reasons for why he committed those killings was because he had a lot of personal problems at the time and that some of the features -- like the devil dog -- was a hoax or at least an exaggeration. But then on the other hand, we can't be sure of that he's telling the truth there either...
I have myself supported the alternative idea that the Ripper may have been suffering from some sort of religious mania (like what's displayed in Berkowich), but it's impossible to say. At least I have never considered the Black Magic or masoic rituals ideas interesting, but that's just me.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 24
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Glenn....Thats a good point about the religious mania frenzy-killer. I think it was Scott Suttar that posted something about [ or was it you ? ],about how the Police/authorities considered " a religious maniac's" frenzy possibly being one of the few motives of the crimes. I believe I asked where they got that idea,as there doesn't seem to be much to refer back to, to percieve the Ripper Crimes as such.
But,as with the Occultist idea,it is as equally credible. Its a damn good idea. We have the benefit of looking back 116 years and using data on crimes such as religiously-motivated crimes [ of which we KNOW there are ] and the rare and admittedly, far and few between occultist crimes, to sort of expand our horizons.
And,of course,Berkowitz did convert to Christianity while in prison,which would bolster the idea of a "religiously motivated" [ with a touch of mental imbalance and hallucinations and that damned dog...]crime spree....
....my round |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 632
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 8:06 am: |
|
From Glenn's post:
However, even in connection with sexual serial killers -- and also Jack Ripper -- we can find ritualistic features. They don't necessarily origin from black magic or the occult, although some killers claim that they have comitted their crimes in some sort of religiuos mania.
A good example of this would be Jeffrey Dahmer. He constructed his own form of religious ritual which, as far as I know, did not have its basis in any recognised occult or other practices. He was in the process of constructing an altar in his flat using the bleached skulls and complete skeletons of his victims.
Basically the ritual does not need to have its basis in any recognised cult, it only has to make sense to the killer's own warped mind.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 293
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Hello All -
I agree with what you just typed Alan. Part of the reason I think people have a hard time with the 'who' and 'why' are because they don't have the same train of thought as the actual perpetrator. Matter of fact, we aren't even the same station as they are, in some cases.
As far as misconceptions go, I'm not sure what I'd like to add to the list ATM. Perhaps that he was a well dressed chap carrying a doctors bag?
From what I've read, anyone running around in any sort of really nice clothes or evening attire would not only stand out like a sore thumb, they would have had to almost _beat_ the prostitutes off with a stick.
Hehehe, I think it stands to reason that a well dressed man running from a horde of prostitutes through whitechapel would most certainly be remembered.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end."
|
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Howard, to whit, concerning the mutual intellectual society, the parties of the first part have contacted the parties of the second part, and the parties of the second part responded in kind to the parties of the first part.
A suitable treaty is in the works.
;-)
Party animal, Jon |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 26
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Thanks for letting me know,Jon..
Mr. Sharp has pointed out an important fact...and deserves a beer or two.
The sort of 'ritualism" that Dahmer performed is more or less an individually- based ritual..not all "occult" crimes or ritualistic slayings involve a group,with some mumbo-jumbo heirarchal rank,insignias,etc..
Some are of the sort Dahmer performed,as Alan has graciously pointed out. Regardless of whether the skull bleaching was THAT important to him [ it may,honestly,have been just another weird,private act of behavior,and some goofy idiosyncrasy...],it WAS performed in conjunction with the horrible acts he enacted.
One of the misconceptions about occult-based murders that people have,is that it
requires a group of like-minded misfits to "qualify" as a cult and subsequently,should any of them perform murder,THEN it is considered an "occult murder" If a lone yo-yo is out and about performing a series of murders that have a "pattern",such as the eviscerations in the WM, it usually and NATURALLY gets downplayed, by everyone....because we are just starting to understand this category of criminal miscreant.
Thank you ,Alan, for mentioning this fact...Be careful on them there mountains too!!!....I can't climb a ladder without tapping into a kidney. You have guts !!! |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 27
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Here is a brief list of what, in my opinion , are miscon's in the Case.........
He was disorganized. He carried a black bag and wore a top hat.... He had to be a local resident of Whitechapel and/or the East End... He didn't need a knowledge of the location of the internal organs ..There's an "F.M." on Mary Kelly's wall.. The location of the found apron from Mrs. Eddowes( 4th victim) relative to the graffiti is irrelevant... Someone would travel from France by ferry or Liverpool( already top-heavy in prostitutes ) to kill in London... He placed coins on the ground in a pattern or left tailoring (!) marks on Mrs. Eddowes eyelids or thereabouts.. The removal of internal organs meant nothing other than souvenirs of a kill... That because a household of previously normal immigrants would be forced to tolerate the inclusion of a mentally-tormented family member,the only way to eliminate and remove the unwanted member would be to slay 5 unassociated people in an effort to bring the expulsion about.... England,like America or any other Western nation,would acknowledge a White Man would be involved in occult practices in 1888 or even a non-sexual serial killer who coveted internal organs for personal intentions.... Jack The Ripper HAD to be a model of what 20th Century profilers believe he was...disorganized,low self-esteem,..He had to be a heterosexual,because only heteros kill women.... Jack The Ripper was "sheltered" by "his people' to avoid Majority justice on a minority member,despite the majority presence of minorities in the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee and the rewards offered by Minority leaders in the East End... Jack The Ripper WAS apprehended,but this fact was not divulged to the people who were in jeopardy the most. The police presence "backed" off in early 1889,because the Police and Crown were sure they had their man... That an American could not have "done" it... That a woman( Jill The Ripper) could have.. That the British police were lackadaisical about their job... That the Ripper HAD to have continued his killing after the Nov. 9th massacre of MJK.. No known suspects fill the criteria of a bona fide suspect( motive,means,and opportunity...)
(Message edited by howard on August 03, 2004) |
Candace
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:34 pm: |
|
Hello All!
Great revival of an old thread - I'm really glad we have the 'what's new' sidebar now.
Hi Mr. Brown!
The definition of 'spree killer' doesn't support a 'cooling off period' between killings. Douglas, Ressler, et al who coined the term used it to mean an escalation killing behavior which was ended only by the death of the killer or - less often - his capture. Starkweather, Whitman and Huberty, along with Kliebold and Harris, would fall into this category. Berkowitz was a classic 'serial killer' in that he performed other functions during the time he was killing. He went to work during the day, went to social events, to the grocery store, etc.
From his letters and interviews, it also seems that Berkowitz was more involved with the 'Four P' or 'Four Phi' movement in California than in Satanism.
His conversion to Christianity was probably a 'from the mouth out' action, as my old granny used to say.
Above, not to push my way into a conversation between Mr. Brown and Mr. Anderson, but there would be some considered sexual serial killers who did not have sexual contact with their victims, what springs to mind are the 'poison ladies' of the late 19th century, killer nurses like Genine Jones (who did confess to having an orgasm while 'saving' a child who she'd injected with susinicholine) and the first series of Boston Strangler victims, the older women, I think.
As for JtR following some occult or religious rituals, has anyone here read about the interesting parallels between the killing of Ms. Kelly and the proscribed methods of offering sacrifice in Leviticus (I think)?
Ok, well, hope I havn't spoken out of turn. If I have, I'll buy the next round...
This is Candy, who forgot her password... *sigh* |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 30
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 8:48 pm: |
|
Hi Candy !
Thanks for the input to the previous posts !
To answer the question about the Leviticus reference, yes, I have heard it from my partner at our website. He posted some reference to it there just last week.
One question about this Genine Jones..Reminding myself about the circular nature of this "chicken or the egg" ssk or other motive from Dan Norder's 5 star post above, has it been stated or documented that she killed to achieve orgasm or was it an after- effect? Is it possible her motive was simply the acquired feeling of power and then,the subsequent orgasm...Perhaps this is irrelevant..Do you know much about this case?
I concede,and rather easily,to the arguments by Glenn in almost every serial killing,in that there is a sexual motive first..Thats a no-brainer from a no-brainer....me !
Likewise,you're right about the "spree" killers you mentioned. I fail to see however,any sexual connotation with the Son Of Sam killings,rather a mentally troubled man,who "heard" things. Of course,in inclusion with possible erections [ pardon the indelicacy...I am from Philly...],and other post-murder manifestations of rapture,joy,and revelry this yo-yo recieved,he seems to be following another agenda here.
I agree with Granny,too....He more than likely converted to Christianity to avoid any more conjugal visits from Big Harold and The Shower Club at his current digs....Good thinking David !!!
By the way,I inadvertently included a misconception,in perusing my hastily "copy and paste" motives list above,that isn't a misconception,rather,a theory. Its the one that is being discussed on this site and should NOT have been in the list. I just noticed it now.... My apologies to any and all.
Later,Candace !!!!!!
(Message edited by howard on August 04, 2004) |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 2:25 pm: |
|
"I concede,and rather easily,to the arguments by Glenn in almost every serial killing,in that there is a sexual motive first..Thats a no-brainer from a no-brainer....me !"
Absolutely, and I would go even further, that generally speaking any, possibly every, violent act by a man against a women contains something of a sexual motivation, even the very selection of a female as opposed to a male is a dead give-away.
It's because of this that I think "sexual motivation" is extremely overplayed and is an attention magnate used to the extent of bordering on meaningless generalities.
Re: JtR.
I think the motive runs deeper, sexual motivation is too superficial when we are only looking at Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.
Regards, Jon |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I believe the biggest misconception by the common person. [Meaning someone who doese not study the case.] is the suggestion that the police knew who the killer was and they coverd this fact up. In almost every movie ever made this misconception is presented.
ALL THE BEST,CB |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2003
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 7:32 am: |
|
Candy,
A good post and a good point regarding the Boston Strangler.
Jon,
I think you're absolutely right.
Also, although Jack the Ripper may fit the category of a serial sexual killer I am also questioning the fact, that sexual motivation would be the only trigger here. I can very much see other underlying issues, like hatred of women or women of a certain kind, or maybe even some sort of delusional, religious mania. Who knows?
To bad we can't open his skull and take a peek into his head.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 455
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Hi,
Sorry, I've missed this thread for a bit. David B. fits as a "sexual serial killer" if we accept his testimony in relation to the sexual gratification he achieved through committing the crimes. Obviously, we're not dealing with someone who's word can be trusted by itself, and so such testimony must always be viewed with caution.
But, if we accept that aspect, it does not preclude other components to his "motivation" as well. He could also have had delusions of talking dogs, and if so, such thoughts would also play a part in the whole picture of his motive.
He has later recanted about the "dog telling him to do things", but then we're left with other possibilities that might warrent exploration. For example, let's pretend that at the time of the murders, David actually was partly motivated by the dog. He confused his "thoughts" with "orders being projected onto him". After he's captured, however, and the stress of his life is reduced (I know it sounds strange, but often these fellows are model prisoners because prison life is somehow less stressful to them - it provides order or something). Anyway, let's say that his delusional state is related to being stressed. The more stressed he gets, the more he loses his grip on reality.
Now, if something like that were the case, he might later realise that the thoughts were his own, and not from the dog. He doesn't lose the memory for the events, just now he's able to attribute the "source" correctly. If so, he might then admit that the "dog" had nothing to do with it.
This is where the study of such individuals is useful. It helps to figure out if such notions have any weight, if they are nothing more than listing the possibilities (which are infinite), or if they have some grounds of support. Even if the specific information only applies to the already captured individual, the more of them that we can study, the more chance we have of discovering any general patterns that might exist.
Also, the information might be useful in the examination of people who suffer a similar mental disorder (in this case the most likely would be paranoid schizophrenia), but which do not manifest themselves in violent criminal behaviour.
As for JtR, I would be highly surprised if there was a sexual component to his motivation. I would also not be surprised if there were general "power" issues as well. Although many, if not all, serial killers seem motivated by sexual reasons, for some I think the "sex" is only part of a more "dominance" issue. The "I'm better than the world realises" type thing, or "I should be alpha male", etc. The sexual gratification comes as part of their assertion of power, control, and domination, which they lack in their life somehow. Chickatelo seems to me to fit this kind of notion (which I admit is not well thought out by myself).
Others seem primarily motived by the sexual component itself. These killers would generally include forcable rape of some sort, or perhaps evidence of a lot of "solitary vice" at the crime scene. BTK seems to fit this idea, but since he's not yet been caught, the "truth" of such statements remains to be seen. Ted Bundy is probably a good example. His murders seem primarily motivated, at least his early ones, by his need to obtain a corpse for sexual gratification. His last murders in Florida are almost reflective of overwhelming sexual frustration. He needed the bodies, even if he couldn't be with them, he needed to know they were out there.
Hmmmm, I'm sort of stream of consciousness here. Sorry if this is a bit disjointed. Anyway, as I say, I've not really thought these idea all the way through. Things are often more complicated than such notions may imply. But, the basic gist of things might be that the "sexual" aspect of a "SSK" might divide this group into two "sub-groups"; 1) those where the motive is primarily sexual and 2) those where the sexual component is part of a more general power/dominance issue, and the sexual component is one dimention of this power/dominance issue.
- Jeff |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 157
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 3:26 am: |
|
Nice post Jeff,
Just re-reading some of the above and the thing that comes to mind is the gender of victims rather than the sexual nature of the crimes. I am merely stressing some of the views in the excellent prior posts here so I don't lay claim to new thoughts.
It seems that perhaps the term sexual serial killer might be a slightly misleading one. When I stated that often the primary motivation of the SSK was power over his intended victims I was of course generalising. It should be noted that there have been instances where SSK's perpetrated their crimes against members of the same gender as themselves, one such instance is noted earlier on this thread. I don't believe that an SSK must get any sort of sexual gratification from their crimes, either at the time of commiting them or afterwards. It is possible that they may but I do not see it as essential to being termed a sexual serial killer. In the main however most SSK's perpetrate their crimes against members of the opposite sex and most of those are men against women.
Perhaps a more appropriate term might be Gender Based Serial Killers. Regardless, it seems to be the power over victims who are of the opposite sex which holds the significance.
Scotty.
|
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:42 am: |
|
I feel some of the all-time worst misconceptions about the Ripper, are the one's perpetuated by the ignorance of Hollywood. The image of the well-dressed aristocrat being just one. Truth be told, we have abolsutely no proof of that whatsoever. That being just one of many, but quite possibly, the most exploited.
Anyways, my jumping off point.
All the best,
Dustin Gould |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 108
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
It was also one of the first theories to be widely promulgated, by Leonard Matters in 1929. He theorised about a Dr Stanley - hence the cape, top hat and Gladstone bag.
It is not a new idea that Jack may have been a "toff". Film-makers probably seize on that approach because it is more "glamorous".
Certainly the 1959 UK film; Murder By Decree (70s); Michael Caine's TV epic (88); and From Hell (2000?) all chose such a killer. Hitchcock's "The Lodger" (20s?) was probably not working class either. That's just from memory.
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3095
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Strangely enough,
one can also find this depiction of the Ripper in paper illustrations as early as contemporary with the murders, the first ones pops up already during and after the Kelly murder.
Well, anyway... it is still crap.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 272
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
How's this for a misconception of JtR not to mention poor old Sherlock Holmes, and Batman of course. In fact is there anyone that they haven't insulted?
This really tickled me when I found it!
Jane
xxxxxx |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
