|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 157
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 11:52 am: |       |
Hello There All -
Allow me first to apologize for my absence from the boards and chat room. Real Life© seems to have a way of intervening just when you think things are going well. With a bit of luck, I'll be back in full swing soon. Until then, I was just sitting here at work with a few moments to kill when it occurred to me that I've got some ideas/questions I'd love to ask :P It also recently occurred to me that perhaps Jack didn't have to be to slick to get away with his crimes.
I'm trying, in the end, to build something in my head that resembles prerequisites. These are all my opinion of course and are very much up for debate (Mostly with myself.. does that make me crazy? :P). Matter of fact, I'd love to hear your comments!! Oh, and I'm not trying to be being presumptuous of course, just thinking aloud. It's how I solve problems best.
For example:
1) The killer needed at least a working knowledge of the area. The reasons for this are varied, but my personal belief is that he wouldn't want to be caught, thus, he would want to know the quickest way out of most tight spots. When I say working btw, I mean that he had to know something of the area. Like "the post office is over there" "the church is down there". Not "If I plan my route perfectly and time it correctly I would be able to walk from here to pluto, undetected" In other words, a 'loose' knowledge of the area.
2) The killer need only to dress in dark clothes and appear to 'fit in'. Once one or two of his crimes where committed, this would be of great use to him. Since, I believe the initial general consensus was that of all the things he might be, 'normal looking' wasn't one of them. I think the opinion of 'what he might be' changed later on during the investigation though. Anyone fill me in on this?*
3) He needed a weapon of some sort.
4) He needed somewhere to put the organs he took away. A deep pocket would suffice. Nothing too terribly special.
5) He needed somewhere or someone to go to. My personal reason for listing this is knowing that DNA and other marvels of modern crime investigation were not available to anyone back then, all one needed to _really_ do to CYA was make sure you weren't there when the police showed up. Of course is not always the only thing one needs to do, of course, but I feel it's close enough to warrant it being listed. I believe it's been said that the police didn't think they would catch him unless it was 'in the act'. Is this true or was it just something they told the press? Also, since society dictates that one can not walk around covered in gook®, it's safe to say that this was a 'need'.
6) He needed all his senses and most of his wits about him. This is kinda a given. How else does one do what he did (under the same conditions) and never get caught (at least as far as we can tell)?**
Wow.. I had no idea I had that much to say/ask. Hehehe, if you've made it this far into my mindless rambling I must ask... whatta think?
crix0r
Footnotes:
*Since we're talking about dark clothes here, the issue of whether he was covered in blood or not should probably be discussed. Sometimes, I'm not sure if it's really an issue. I mean all one would have to do is make sure they are wearing dark clothing and keep and ear open to coming foot steps (more on the foot steps below). Whether he was covered in gook® (blood, bile, etc.) is almost moot at that point. Of course, you then need somewhere to go with your newly dirty clothes and in some cases, organs.
Isn't it very likely that all he would _need_ to do is dress appropriately, listen and look around for a good time to strike? (Perhaps that's why the dates of the murders seem rather hap-hazard. Because those were the only times he felt he could 'get away' with it. Then again, perhaps not :P)
From that point in the crime, he's home free. Literally. All he would need to do then is keep his head down and walk home (or wherever). If he didn't look like a crazed doctor, or carried a little black bag, I'd have to chance a guess that no one would be 'looking' for him. A testament to this fact is that no one 'saw' anything that lead to catching anyone (that we know of, of course). Keeping in mind that it could be a testament to other things too (like the fact that he was just lucky and wasn't listening for foot steps, et al.).
And while where here, a what if. If the killer really didn't write any communications, goulston street or otherwise, then imagine how easy it would be to continue forward with his 'work'. You are the direct opposite of what people are 'on the lookout for'. Hell of a cover. What's worse, in this case, he wouldn't even need to be directly involved. Just some 'enterprising journalist' :P
**For example, I'm not sure what shoes were made of back then (though I'll find out) and I'm also not 100% sure of what the roads were made of (Though cobble stone or some sort of brick would be my first guess). Now, it doesn't take someone schooled in quantum physics or general relativity to realize that if the street activity was fairly quite, and the shoes are loud because of them banging on the cobble stone, then it's probably a very safe thing to say that the ripper was able to elude capture simply because he heard people coming a mile away (hehe, almost literally in this case) and not because of superior planning, higher intellect or pure luck (pure luck to me implies that it only happens once or twice. Since we are fairly certain he got away, all the way away every time, then I don't think pure luck really applies).
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 771
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Jason,
Good post, The killer during the acts he committed, no matter how much he tried to be careful, would have been bloodstained, if he had have been stopped by a police officer, or officers, during his escape from the scene, what would his reaction have been?,
I would say he would have despatched anyone that he came in contact with, after all you can only hang once, proberly Schawrtz, and pipeman, were lucky they did not hang around, and tried to intervene.
Jack was a violent homicidal person , when out to kill, and he simply had enough luck , to reach his place of abode, without any further dangers, to his liberty.
Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 487
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
I agree that he would almost certainly have been bloodstained, but not saturated with blood. If his outer clothing or cloak were black, the stains might not be apparent in the dark.
I suspect he probably carried away the organs in some sort of a parcel, perhaps the sort of paper a butcher uses to wrap meat, and tucked into a large pocket. I think we can discount as silly Melvin Harris's theory of secreting the organs away tucked under a necktie.
Andy S. |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 159
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
Thanks Richard, Andrew.
Andrew: Yeah, I mean.. if you break each piece down to what was required, you can get a better picture of the whole. Which is why I'm attempting this exercise in the first place
I would say not even "required" would be something to wrap them in. Just something to put them in. Again, we aren't sure whether taking them with him was a spur of the moment idea that he liked and stuck with, or premeditated. Either way, it's only requirement would be that it could be safely tucked away until he reached his safe haven. Right?
Richard: Though I do think that if caught, he might fight back and risk killing someone to get away, I don't think he would have ever needed to. Wearing dark clothes (probably felt or a felt like material), especially black, would make it difficult to see blood. Stains or otherwise. Good lighting conditions or not, until it dried.
Perhaps I should add this:
7) Gloves or some means of cleaning his hands so as not to draw attention to himself. Again, if stopped, even with a good excuse, bloody hands are always a bad idea.
Whatta think?
crix0r |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 488
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Bloody hands could have been wiped on the victims clothing, making gloves non-essential.
Organs would ooze blood and other bodily fluids. Some sort of absorbent wrap would be necessary. Perhaps newspaper would be good enough.
For dealing bloodstained clothing there is another possibility. If he were dressed in slaughterman's clothing, blood stains would require no explanation. in 1888 there was no test to distinguish human blood from the blood of another mammal.
Andy S. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 582
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Hi Crixor,A few days ago we discussed the use of chalk as an absorbent and "whitener" to remove the blood stains.I remembered the policeman [White?]who described a man leaving Mitre Square{Rumbelow thinks it was MitreSquare}just as the body [of Catherine Eddowes]was discovered. He said he noticed the man"s hands because "he had long tapering fingers and his hands were SNOWY WHITE".Now a method in the past to clean stains from white plimsolls or canvass sports shoes[tennis shoes /cricket ware etc]was a chalk block called "Blanco" which was in a tin and my grandmother had such a block in a tin.She used to say she could shift any stains easily with a spot of "Blanco" and used to dampen the block with a sponge and clean my Dad"s cricket gear and my parents tennis shoes.
I think its possible that the killer kept a block of this chalky substance or something similar to absorb and disguise stains.
Natalie |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 957
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Jason,
Local knowledge definitely, definitely.
But I would like to add this doesnt only mean knowledge of layouts of streets, roads and alleys but also the people....including victims.
And previous, Im sure that he had previous.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
David Hunt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 11:48 pm: | |
Has anyone ever asked if there were ever any male victims of jack the ripper, im curious. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 632
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Hi Nats et al!!!
Nats...love the Blanco idea!! hmmmmmmm Lets face it dark clothing is SO obvious!!!!! a) you sort of disappear....especially if you're one of those 'invisible' locals and b) black or dark could be interpreted as just dirty/filthy ....in which case you 'd have become 'invisible' even easier!!Lets face it the grubbier the better and blood stains....who'd have noticed them?!
Cheers
Suzi |
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 43
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 1:45 am: | |
David,
Yes, there have been male victims of Jack the Ripper. Thanks to his crimes and the interest in them, an accomplished artist named Walter Sickert has had his reputation ruined at the hands of a writer - proving that the pen is AT LEAST as mighty as the sword (knife?). Oh, and at least one teacher I know of won't teach her students about Lewis Carroll because, after all, he WAS the Ripper. An accomplished physician by the name of Sir William Gull spent his career saving lives, and now is thought to have taken them. And I remember hearing something about a prince...
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
murphy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
Not sure if this has been brought up...
But after a while, wouldn't he start to reek because of the organs in his pocket? Regardless of how deep it was it would have to smell pretty bad, and someone would surely noticed. Unless they all had stuffy noses... |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
