|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
interested
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 2:23 am: |       |
Im new to this, and havent gathered as many facts as i should, but in reading around here this is something that came to mind. Cream was known in using poisons, which is wat gave this idea. The victims were have said not to have screamed and the use of grapes by the killer was a theory. Perhaps they were injected(thegrapes) with poision or a drug to subdue and let him have way easier. just an idea. any thoughts on this? |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 80
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
Hi, "interested"
The use of grapes by the killer is part of the discredited Royal Conspiracy theory. Autopsy reports show no records of any victims having eaten grapes, poisoned or otherwise. It's just one of the many myths that surround the case.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 7:26 pm: | |
Hi Interested,
First... welcome to the boards. Secondly, Yes,
do a little more research on your Ripper path.
Third, Cream was in Prison in Canada at the time of all the murders. All the best.
Paul |
Jeff leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
Wasn't there some suggestion that Cream might have had a name sake double. (I know this sounds far fetched but two people with the same name working in crime in differant countries provide each other with a perfect alibi.) I'm sure I've read that there was a question mark about Creams alibi and whether he was in jail or even Canida at the time.
After all he did confess...certainly got to be top ten suspect.
Jeff |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
Negatory, Negatory,
Jeff, with all due respect, Cream doesnt belong anywhere near the top 10. The alibi double scenario is absurd and unfounded. There have been so many people confess to being Jack the Ripper. The fact is that the real Jack probably never confessed his secret to anyone. Serial killers usually dont like to reveal their secrets, unless they are captured. Best Regards.
Paul
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
I agree Paul
But then there are so many holes in the other theories that 'the Cream had a double theory' doesn't seem so crazy. I certainly find it easier to swallow than some of the Royal, or artist theories.
I still find it interesting that aswell as 'Jack' there were so many serial killers in such a relatively small location and space in time. Chapman, Cream, the torso killer and possibly others, we have 17 bodies and a number of MO's.
Just wanted to point out that there has been an explination put forward for Creams whereabouts. I mean he might have been drinking tea with Sickert in France, we just don't know.
Jeff |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 514
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
Actually, Cream was in the Illinois State Penitentiary in Joliet, IL, USA (near Chicago) at the time of the murders.
That being said, the Joliet Penitentiary does have a history for vice and corruption and it is not inconceivable (though very unlikely) that Cream could somehow have been absent from the prison while still being recorded as an inmate. This is the prison in which Leopold and Loeb were incarcerated after their infamous murder conviction. Thanks to bribes by the boys' parents they were accorded a life of luxury rather than austerity at Joliet, although one of them was eventually murdered there.
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on May 18, 2004) |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
106 miles to chicargo
Half a packet of cigarettes
a full tank of gas
its dark
We're wearing sunglasses
Hit it.........
That Joliet?
Cream still doesn't quite fit the MO for me, did anyone see a documentry about serial killers and attacks on prositutes in a south America city. The idea being that certain social environments may give rise to higher percentage of serial killings?
Jeff |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 521
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:23 pm: | |
Well, actually Joliet is probably 30-35 miles southwest of downtown Chicago, where I am from. Today it would be considered a suburb. In Cream's day I supposed it was rather farther removed. But the "Stateville" prison at Joliet does have an infamous history of corruption. While very unlikely, I could not call it impossible that Cream could have bribed his way out while continuing to be listed as an inmate.
But I agree that the MO is very different. But then, the same is true for Klosowski who is considered by man y to be a viable suspect.
Andy S.
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 5:30 am: | |
Hi Andy
The referance was to the film the 'Blues brothers' I'm sure the film opens at Joliet prison, not that this is relivant in any way, just having fun.
I was recently working on a TV series and we had Cream in the top 12 suspects (No poticular order) and probably because he's interesting in his own right much like Chapman.
Interestingly I posted recently about a Radio London itom but noone replyed. It featured a story about the Pleasure Unit, 395 Bethnal Green Road, (Check their website for details). Some Chap claimed an old lady had told him that Jack the Ripper had once lived there, his name being Sam Chapman. He also Claimed to have found a breif case full of documents dated 1902, the breif case had the inicials SM. Would normally just dismiss such claims but it stuck me that George Chapmans real Christian name was Severin.
Perhaps just a coincidence but I was wondering if George Chapman did have any connections with 395 Bethnal Green Road, and if there could be anything in the claims about the breif case?
Jeff |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 8:49 pm: | |
Hi all,
As a criminology student, i thought i'd let you know that Dr Thomas Neil Cream couldn't possibly be the ripper of 1888, he doesn't fit the profile regardless if he was in Joliet prison,or had bribed his way out of there, Cream was a convicted poisoner 1891, a ripper doesn't suddenly change from horrific mutilation, to poisoning, a ripper gets satisfaction in mutilation, he however will not get the same satisfaction needed from poisoning. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 547
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
Hello Shelley,
I'm not a criminology student and I don't mean to be presumptuous, but I've read a lot on the subject and I'm afraid you are overstating your point. It is true that as a general rule violent killers don't change their MOs that drastically, i.e. from butchery with a knife to poisoning. However, to say that it "couldn't possibly" be the case is not true. Criminals do sometimes change their MOs. In the case of the Ripper, it could have been due to any of a number of reasons -- such as almost being caught in the previous MO (butchery). Not only Cream, but also another known poisoner, Severin Klosowski (aka George Chapman), has been suspected by people knowledgeable in criminology as the Ripper.
Personally, I don't consider Cream a suspect. Klosowski may be, however.
Andy S.
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 54
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 8:47 pm: | |
Hi Andrew,
I haven't the faintest idea why anyone would have suspected George Chapman as the ripper, i did hear however that Abberline was supossed to have made a comment about when Chapman was arrested, 'So you've caught the ripper then', but he was only joking when he was supposed to have said it. I have discussed this with real policemen and they agree that a mutilator does not change his MO, i wouldn't read books that were just unprofessional in the field of criminology and attributed to writers, that have a fairly proportionate understanding of confusion and somewhat exageration and fantasy. Stick to the books that are professional in the field of criminology, mutilators can start off with just stabbing and cutting (small cuts that is) but once this process becomes apparent it progresses not declines, otherwise you just get total confusion and disorganisation, disorganisation is attributed to severly mentally sick/ill people, psychopaths have order and are very cunning and convincing, many mutalators in serial killing have been of the psycopathic personality, i strongly believe that the ripper was indeed a psychopath. You could if you wanted engage in some research of the mutilator serial killer, talk to people who are actually in the police force, i have!
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student. |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 58
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 9:29 pm: | |
Dr Cream is one of the least likely suspects to be accused of being Jack ; he did try and ' confess ' that he was Jack the Ripper on the gallows but he was hung before he could gain the notoriety. Since he was in prison at the time of the murders , it wasn't him. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 218
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 10:23 pm: | |
Shelley,
Regarding the idea that it's completely impossible to change MOs, I also think you are overstating facts. What used to just be something profilers called "highly unlikely" somehow got changed around in people's minds to "totally impossible." That's not how profiling is supposed to work, and a lot of the things that experts now claim to be impossible we have actual records of serial killers doing. It's like at some point in the process they started putting more trust in their opinions than in the case data.
Simon,
Actually, I doubt that Cream did try to confess. Many people who were present don't report that he said anything at the end (and I believe Abberline was there, so if he had made a confession you'd think he of all people would have mentioned it later, especially when he was trying to pin the blame on him). This looks like another case of one person making up stories afterwards and then having them take on a life of their own. One solitary guy says Cream said "I am J-" and now we have books claiming he said "I am Jack the R-". Give it a few years and it'll evolve into a full confession naming accomplices.
(Message edited by dannorder on August 14, 2004)
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 64
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 2:18 pm: | |
Dan,
Could you answer a question for me?
1) Why does a mutilator serial killer mutilate in the first place?
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 561
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 9:45 am: | |
Hi Shelly,
I certainly hope you don't take offense at my points, but I still think you have overstated a general principle. I have indeed read books written by actual criminologists and police officers about this case and others. I have not run across one that says it is impossible for a serial killer to change his MO drastically. In fact, a book authored by a former FBI profiler that I once read (sorry, don't remember the title; it was not about the Ripper) suggested that such a change is quite possible.
Regarding Abberline's comment about Chapman, although I myself can't give it much credence there is nothing in the literature that I know of to suggest it was said in jest. Abberline seems to have been quite serious -- which has always been a puzzle to me.
Andy S. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 222
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 5:58 pm: | |
Hi Shelley,
A killer who mutilates may do so for any number of reasons. It could be a warning to others, a sexually sadistic desire, an attempt to locate a specific part (depending upon the nature of the mutilations, of course), or some sort of delusional or disordered thought process at work (to let the demons out, or whatever).
In order for someone to be unable to change their MO for killing, you would have to believe that the person's reasons for killing remain totally constant and that he is unable to adapt logically if continuing the same MO puts him in danger or is otherwise inefficient in some way. A mentally disturbed person who has a chronic and incurable condition (as compared to some temporary split from reality by drugs or for some other reason) may not change his or her MO, but psychopaths and other types of killers certainly can, if they have a reason to.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
shelley 1
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:10 pm: | |
Hello Andrew,
So sorry that i haven't replied to your last post, but i have unregistered now, as i am very busy with my studies ( as i intend working as a criminologist...just have to get my qualifications completed) not to mention the family responsibilities.I had just recently spotted your post as i was having a look at what Glenn may have posted ( he's a really nice guy).
Yes i can see where you are coming from, but i was talking about a specific type of killing a 'sex-mutilator serial killer' rather than someone who is disorganised, or a 'pure hatred killing' or someone who may change his / her MO just to confuse the investigation etc. A sex-mutilator serial killer that is driven by a sexual inclination in mutilation such as Jack the Ripper, does not change his MO drastically to a form of killing that would use poisoning, the sexual drive and emotional or psyche heightening of a sex-mutilator would not get the satisfaction from a poisoning, it has to be a mutilation of the sexual potent parts of the body that appeals to the sex-mutilator. I hope this makes it a bit more understandable what i was trying to put across. As for Abberline's comment, i'm not sure whether he was infact joking or actually being serious, although i do understand that the British authorities were quite new to sex-killers, from a book that i had read i found information that said, that a german proffessor came to England around 1887 to teach about sex-serial killers, so maybe...Just maybe Abberline didn't really have all the knowledge that so many criminologists have to day. I prefer criminologist's books as oppossed to just Psychologists, psychologists are somewhat ridged in their analysis, the first thing they tend to say in a case like Jack the Ripper is that he was probably a single man, but it wasn't the case in the Yorkshire Ripper killings as Peter Sutcliffe was a married man with 2 children!. I find that criminologists are much more flexiable and they state actual cases, so i like reading those type of books, a good leading British Criminologist that i admire is Brian Masters. I do agree with you Andrew, but it's just that not all mutilating killings can be thrown into one box ( as it were), the MO has to be looked at and Duly catagorised, to find what type of killer it is. Jack the Ripper was a sex-mutilator serial killer, not just a mutilator killer. Also if you see any of Glenn Andersson's posts, it may be worth your while to take a look at what he says, he is in my mind ( anyway), a very astute and intellegent guy and a lot can be learned from him.
Again, sorry i hadn't responded before, and i wasn't being rude, so please don't think that, i'm just very busy and can't really post as often as many others on these boards.
Shelley Wiltshire |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
