|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Just Dave
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 7:22 pm: | 
|
I don’t claim to be physic or anything of the kind. But some days I take a wander around the Whitechapel area to try to pick up the atmosphere of the Ripper era.
However strange feelings and incites have started to affect me.
For example when walking down Fashion Street I was convinced that the Ripper at one time had sat on the kerb of the North side in total despair. This I was convinced was the reason why the Ripper started on his task. I felt it was linked to a breakup with his partner due to being discovered with prostitutes or being discovered with a prostitute. He blamed the prostitutes for the breakup. “They brought this curse down on me”.
Making my way down to Durward Street, I felt that after the murder he looked to walk west ward but something stopped him, so he walked east ward towards Brady Street. He then looked towards Whitechapel Road and was all set to walk down Brady Street to wards Bethnal Green. But again something stopped him and he made his way into Whitechapel Road. Next to Whitechapel Station I felt/ know there used to be a covered alley way. There the Ripper stood laughing wiping himself down. He could not believe he had not been caught.
Waiting for the tube at Whitechapel I had the feeling the “nothing” in the Juwes are to blame etc had great significance. The “nothing” being the poor women he had murdered. How can the Jews be blamed for nothing, less then an animal.
I hope to revisit soon. I know it doesn’t help. But you have to agree these were strange feelings.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 241
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 3:19 pm: |
|
You have strange feelings,
hallucinations, and thoughts...
Doctors can treat that.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 61
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Dave-
Try to get a feeling about Jack looking into a window and seeing his reflection.
Mags
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 70
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Hey "Just Dave,"
If you are in fact telling the truth, I wouldn’t call you crazy or send you to some doctor.
Interesting idea you mention or you felt you got when you thought of the "nothing." I've never heard that before, but that does make quite a lot of sense. “
"The Jews won't be blamed for the killing of these women, or rather, these animals."
As the Ripper might have described them. Do any of your parents have any psychic abilities similar to this? Like, being able to communicate somehow with the dead. Like, as in talking with them. I know there are many people out there who have this trait. And believe me; it's extremely scary to hear these people say this when they are on T.V. or radio shows and so forth.
|
Just Dave
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 3:47 pm: |
|
This is one of the reasons that I didn’t use my real name. The fear of ridicule.
As I said before I don’t claim to have any special power etc. I have had the old premonition, but I’ve put this down to the law of averages.
In my younger years I have always been drawn to the area of the Ripper murders, even before I had an interest. Yes, I agree it may be of no importance, and it may be my imagination. But for some reasons the feeling were strong.
If anyone is interested I will post follow ups, as and when. But if not, I will respect that the investigation for the Ripper identity is for those of a serious nature. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1480
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2004 - 11:19 am: |
|
Just Dave
Have just 'happened ' upon this thread....I don't think there's anything out of the ordinary in the images you're relating, the horrors which have occurred around this area are enough to send more than a ripple through the ether!....and thats BEFORE you start on Jack!..Carry on posting I'm sure you'll find you're not alone here (no pun intended!)
Suzi |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 10:34 am: |
|
Hi Dave
Your experiences were certainly interesting to read about. The whole issue of the involvement of the paranormal in the Whitechapel murders is, I am sure, one of which we have only scratched the surface. The purported Lees story is well known and there have been subsequent attempts to use the paranormal to look into the whole case. The best known recent example is probably the book Jack the Ripper: A Psychic Investigation.
The involvement of the paranormal in the Whitechapel story seems to fall into two main categories:
1) Involuntary experiences, such as your own, in which I would also include the alleged ghost sightings which are discussed on another thread. Another contemporary instance of this would be the alleged kissing of Mrs Malcolm by her sister at the moment of her death
2) Active psychic investigation of the case such as in the Psychic Investigation book mentioned above.
In some respects, considering both the notoriety of the case, and the huge vogue in Victorian England for all things spiritualist and psychic, it is surprising that there are not records of more alleged insights or solutions of the case by contemporary practitioners. Certainly in more recent high profile cases psychics have come forward with "solutions" or clues, as in the Yorkshire Ripper case.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on November 07, 2004) |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 346
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I won't go into a sales pitch or anything, but I thought I'd mention that the October 2004 issue of Ripper Notes has an article by Associate Editor Wolf Vanderlinden documenting all the major and some minor references to psychic investigations of the Ripper case, contemporary and otherwise. All of the ones mentioned by Chris above are detailed and examined, as well as quite a few others. So there were other alleged solutions offered by contemporary practitioners, which Wolf's piece covers (although I'm sure there must have been others back then that weren't documented so we haven't heard about them).
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1486
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Dave
Glad to see this thread's still alive and sort of kicking...
There certainly is a lot of 'atmosphere' still hanging around (in a stone tape sort of way)surrounding the sites that's for sure..ok it depends where you are..For me..for what that's worth it has to be Mitre Sq...then of course if you walk up to Pol late at night and then make the run right onto Whitechapel High St....thats scary too and the atmosphere around the Board School is undeniable!
Suzi
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 11:28 am: |
|
I don't know how anyone can separate an active imagination from genuine impressions (psychic?), assuming such things exist.
I suppose if I were inclined I would try to bring someone through Whitechapel who had never heard of JtR, possibly a visitng tourist, and see if they get any 'feelings'.
I know when I was there I didn't, but then anyone could say, "you are not receptive", maybe not.
But receptive to what?, how do you 'prove' receptivity without bringing your active imagination into dispute. It seems to me to be a circular argument.
I guess I'm just one of those unimaginative types who does not believe in ghosts and spirits and things-that-go-bump-in-the-night.
I guess when we dee (die), one of us is in for a surprise 
Jon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2202
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Jon,
For once I have to disagree with you.
As far as I am concerned, imagination has nothing to do with paranormal experiences.
OK, to get a "feeling" on a certain place is of course a questionable indication of the paranormal, and is indeed inviting to imagination and excessive sensitivity, but how very detailed and sometimes physical appiritions and manifestations, experienced by sound and normal people -- often sceptics, with both feet on the ground -- can be perceived as imagination goes beyond me.
Those who claim that, is usually those who themselves have not experienced anything, and I don't question that, because it is my firm belief that you must have experienced such encounters yourself in order to fully understand what people are talking about in this context.
When you haven't, it is easy to ridicule it -- like some here do (not you, Jon).
People who becomes "victims" of such events usually look for a natural explanations first -- not supernatural ones. It is first when those natural, often far-fetched explanations fails to deliver a credible scenario, one has to accept that it is something else.
I have had a couple of very remarkable ghost experiences myself (as have friends of mine), and I consider myself to be rather rational -- not drunk, not schizofrenic, not hallucinative and those who know me says I have a complete lack of imagination.
Everyone is allowed to their opinion about this, but it is far too easy to refer to vivid imagination and hallucinations, without considering the real meaning behind the words.
I can only hope that those who do, will get the chance to experience it themselves, and then they will realise that the human rational mind and natural science do not have all the answers. Therefore these things also go beyond our ability to "prove" it, by scientific standards.
All the best
G, Sweden
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 08, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I'm glad you realize I wasn't ridiculing anyone, I have just never experienced anything that I could not explain, as far as 'noises', 'feelings' & 'visions' goes.
So if imagination has no bearing on 'impressions', then I need to know more about peoples experiences in places where they know nothing of the associated history.
But how does someone 'prove' they knew nothing?.
Regards, Jon |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2203
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 12:57 pm: |
|
The answer is simple, Jon.
You can't.
That is the problem with personal experiences. Of course, if more than one person at the same time and incident sees the same thing, it would of course give the story more credibility.
I don't believe in the possibility of hallucination and imagination, if a person -- sober and without psychological problems -- for example encounters a very clear ghost in the shape of an almost physical apparitions.
Sounds and feelings CAN in itself be misinterpreted as paranormal activities even when they're not, but hardly these kind of extreme occurrences, especially if they are also connected with poltergeist phenomenons.
But that is why I said, that one has to experience it yourself in order to fully understand why it in many cases can't be explained by hallucinations and imagination. Your own experiences is the key to understanding others. But that is as far as it gets.
Not very scientific, I know. But then again, I believe science has its limitations anyway.
Personal experience have very little value as scientific "proof", but then on the other hand I don't believe we can prove everything.
I know what I have experienced, but of course I can't demand that someone else who weren't there should automatically understand it.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Hi all
I have no special feelings or knowledge whether paranormal sensations and phenomena are real. However, I do know such things have been extensively reported and studied, and that, moreover, psychics have been used with success to help in the solution of some crimes. As I recall, a type of sensation occurred even to British criminal profiler David Canter, who is certainly a world recognized forensic scientist. As he explained in his TV series, "Mapping Murder" shown here on BBC America, in looking into the 1999 murder of broadcaster Jane Dando and going to the site where she was killed on her own doorstep, he began to receive a strong "feeling" that the police were on the wrong track, and that her murderer lived close by. This in fact turned out to be the case, and a local man, Barry George (no relation to me), was convicted of the crime in 2001. How do you explain such feelings? A psychic disturbance or what? Or in the case of Canter, was it just that his experience of other cases gave him the strong "hunch" that the killer lived in the neighborhood?
I did want to note one very important point about Just Dave's posting of August 19, 2004. I think Dave made a very perceptive remark when he wrote:
Waiting for the tube at Whitechapel I had the feeling the "nothing" in the [inscription which stated the] Juwes are to blame etc had great significance. The "nothing" being the poor women he had murdered. How can the Jews be blamed for nothing, less than an animal.
Perhaps there is a Ripperologist who has made this same point before, although offhand I cannot recall this point being made by an authority on the case. Does anyone recall a writer who has discussed this possibility?
Of course, I think Dave is exactly on the money. Society in 1888 did regard these women as of no account. They were seen as "unfortunates" or human garbage, of no importance to society at large, and hardly of consequence either to the other denizens of the East End.
Thus, this possibility suggested by Just Dave explains the apparent contradiction of the graffito "The Juwes are not the men to be blamed for nothing." Could it be that one hundred and sixteen years have passed and the riddle of the graffito has finally been solved???!!! 
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3402
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
This could. as you say, be a reference to Eddowes as a "zero," a piece of "human trash" as it were. But another possibility is to do with Kate's response when asked her name : "Nothing."
Of course, the graffito may not have been Jack's.
Robert |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1061
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
You might be right that the graffito was not Jack's, and that is a thought that I believe Stewart Evans and others have, that the writing was there on the wall before. However, Stan Russo and I were talking in the chat room a couple of weeks ago and we made the point that the piece of apron that was taken was of substantial size. These women's white aprons stretched from their waist to their feet (check with the period view of Dorset Street with which I am sure you are familiar).
This means that the piece of apron had to have been cut for a specific reason, and most likely not to take organs (he had never done such a thing before with his earlier victims) or to wipe his hands (too big a cloth, and he could have almost immediately thrown it away after wiping his hands in Mitre Square or nearby).
No, likely he took the piece of apron to leave below the graffito to legitimate it as a message so the police would know the message came from the killer. . . just as later the half a kidney could have been sent by the killer to prove the Lusk ("From Hell") letter came from him.
Robert, you do make a good point about Kate giving her name as "Nothing" and Jack could have known of that incident in Bishopsgate police station. He and Eddowes could even have laughed at the joke. And then with her murder he demonstrated she was exactly that: nothing.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Hi, Chris
I didn't know Stewart Evans questioned the GSG. Regarding the apron, what do you think about Dr. Brown's testimony (Ultimate, pg. 250) that "there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it"?
I don't want to get too far off the subject of ghosts, but don't you think it's clear that the apron piece really was used as a towel? Of course, that doesn't say anything about whether the GSG is authentic or not. I've got my doubts, but I don't think it can ever be ruled out. I reckon the distance from Mitre Square to Goulston Street tells us how filthy Jack got his hands, or perhaps he just felt that Goulston Street was his first opportunity to ditch it without anyone seeing it.
Got that last bit from a Oujia board (no offense anyone).
Cheers,
Dave |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 347
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 10:10 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Probably the wrong thread to be getting into this point, but while Jack had never taken a large piece of cloth before, he also had never taken a kidney before either. Taking a piece of apron to carry a uterus would certainly be a bit much, but for two organs, one of some not inconsiderable size, isn't really too much of a stretch. And, as David noted, one way or another it was used to clean his hands and/or the knife. I don't think solid conclusions can be made one way or another on whether it was intentionally placed, though certainly different people have their opinions.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Hi Dan and David
As I wrote earlier, Stan Russo and I discussed this matter, and it just seems that to take the large piece of apron, that had to be specifically cut, half of the whole white apron, from the woman's waist to her feet, i.e., a sizeable piece of cloth of several square feet, when he could have just ripped off some of her petticoat, wiped his hands, and made his getaway, he must have done it purposely, for main purpose of removing the piece of apron, not for wiping his hands or carrying organs. We think the cloth was taken for the express purpose of legitimating the inscription, because he knew the police would match the two halves of the apron together and know it came from the victim. Agreed, we can never know for sure that this was the case, but that is how my thinking and Stan's runs on the question.
All my best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on November 08, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 133
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 10:58 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I agree with Chris you do make a good point about Kate giving her name as "Nothing".
Odd thing is that the statement was made at Bishopsgate station. How would Jack have known unless Kate told him, that is if she had any memory of it.
Nina
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Hi Nina
Say Jack had Kate in a pub feeding her drink, or else he had his own bottle that they were sharing. And he kept joking with her, "You're nothing, you know that, Kate, you're really nothing." She gurgles and giggles, "You don't mean that, but yes you're right I'm really nothing, ha ha, look-- look at me, I'm nothing, I'm a bloomin' fire engine I am, ha ha." And so on, and they made that assignation to meet later in Aldgate. He had called her "nothing" and the name stuck, as a joke between them. . .
But, my friends, he's a kind gentleman to an old gal like me, givin' me drink like he does, he really doesn't mean I'm nothin' now does 'e?, the fella must really care. . . But what about that 'im 'inting he might be the Ripper too, hoo hoo, poo poo, he couldn't be, could he, a kind gent like that, ah but maybe. . . (mind ticking over, a possible scheme to elicit money from the "kind" stranger. . .)
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 136
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 1:13 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Now that gave me the chills. 
Nina |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 7:42 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
You wrote:
This means that the piece of apron had to have been cut for a specific reason, and most likely not to take organs (he had never done such a thing before with his earlier victims)...
I think your 'never...with his earlier victims' is slightly misleading. In line with Dan's observations, I would emphasise that the killer had progressed from taking nothing away after mutilating Nichols, one organ (and possibly the brass rings) from Chapman, to taking two organs and a large piece of pinny from Eddowes.
Assuming he had no previous experience of transporting human organs from the scene of crime when he killed Chapman, Jack may not have realised just how messy and risky the process was until he was halfway home with a very soggy and leaking pocket hankie!
Next time, a large piece of cloth cut from his victim's apron would have been perfect for serving the dual purpose of wiping his hands and knife and wrapping the organs as well as possible, to absorb much of the wetness during his onward journey.
Nipping into Goulston Street Public Baths (if they were open that late - I believe an average of 80+ first class baths were taken per day in 1888, and many more second class baths), to clean himself up and transfer the not-so-soggy organs into pocket hankie(s), he could have emerged later to chalk his message in the entrance to the Jews' dwellings and underline it with the discarded apron piece, before finally returning home.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2207
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 8:35 am: |
|
Hi all,
I can't figure out how on earth this apron discussion has found it's way into this thread -- it is totally out of subject -- but let me just add, that I am afriai, Chris, that I have to go along with Dan's and Caz's interpretations here.
Especially I find Caz's line "Next time, a large piece of cloth cut from his victim's apron would have been perfect for serving the dual purpose of wiping his hands and knife and wrapping the organs as well as possible, to absorb much of the wetness during his onward journey" explains it rather well, and Dan has covered this perspective as well.
Since he now had two organs (or bits of them) to take with him, it would also be natural for him to need a bigger cloth, not least to soak up the grease and blood from the organs as well. I think it makes sense.
I think we should be careful about reading to much symbolic meaning and "messages" into the actions of the Ripper. Why the Ripper placed or dropped the apron right underneath the graffito (and I personally agree that he was not responsible for that chalk message), we just simply don't know. It may seem like a weird coincidence and it is tempting to read all sorts of meanings into it, but they don't necessarily have to be connected.
Anyhow, a great account of Eddowes' pub visit in your last post, Chris. It had definitely novel or film script quality to it. I could almost hear her saying those things myself.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 9:06 am: |
|
Hi all
Caz, your argument that the murderer needed something to carry the organs so he took the piece of apron does not quite hold water. He had not just discovered this, as you say, but past experience had shown it, and because he might have found it messy last time carrying away Chapman's organs, that experience would likely mean he would bring something with him, a bag or some kind of receptacle, to carry the organs, wouldn't he? And consider too that the cutting of the apron would have been somewhat time consuming, a minute or so, for a man who had to be on his way quickly to avoid the police. Which again makes me think that the apron was removed for some other reason. As the profilers say, he was "organized" in that he came with his knife, so he would likely have had a receptacle for organs and probably a lantern too.
Glenn, while you may be right that the graffito/apron discussion does not belong here, it arose out of Just Dave's thoughts about the graffito. Thanks for your kind words about my rendering of how a possible scene between the Ripper and Eddowes might have played out.
Nina, yes it is chilling to think about how these women's last hours might have been.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3409
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 10:01 am: |
|
A great discussion here! Chris, if he wanted the apron piece in order to authenticate the message, could he not have made the message a bit more intelligible?
Or, if he had the foresight to bring a bag with him to put the organs in, could he not have brought a pre-written message to leave on the victim?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2209
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Don't mention it -- I think you hit her personality to the letter; that is exactly how I picture her.
"Caz, your argument that the murderer needed something to carry the organs so he took the piece of apron does not quite hold water. He had not just discovered this, as you say, but past experience had shown it, and because he might have found it messy last time carrying away Chapman's organs, that experience would likely mean he would bring something with him, a bag or some kind of receptacle, to carry the organs, wouldn't he?"
Chris, I believe you are basing this on the notion that he went out those nights with the aim to commit murders. I am not so sure. I believe he was someone who used to carry a knife -- note that this was probably not uncommon at all in East End at the time, and probably a lot of people did that -- and that the murders were somewhat unpremeditated and triggered off by something or someone.
"And consider too that the cutting of the apron would have been somewhat time consuming, a minute or so, for a man who had to be on his way quickly to avoid the police."
Well, this is really insignificant, isn't it? Beacuse, whatever the reason, he DID cut off that piece of apron anyway. It is (in such a situation) a time consuming act either way.
"As the profilers say, he was "organized" in that he came with his knife, so he would likely have had a receptacle for organs and probably a lantern too."
No, actually, that is wrong. I haven't read all profiles out there on Jack the Ripper, but those I've read doesen't nail him down as an organized character -- on the contrary.
John Douglas and others have "diagnosed" him as a disorganized or mixed killer, unsure of himself, and originally carrying his knife with him for protection, not necessarily to kill.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 09, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1069
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn
I believe there may be some disagreement among the profilers on whether the Ripper was organized or disorganized, something I have pointed out on these boards before. This disagreement may be partly a function of the fact that we don't know that much about him, how organized or prepared he was. Former FBI profiler Roy Hazelwood stated on one of the Ripper TV programs that the murderer was organized because he brought his knife along, but that he (Hazelwood) did not regard the Ripper as a "rocket scientist", i.e., he was not a smart man. However, you are correct that John Douglas called the Whitechapel murderer disorganized. But the point is, as you have indicated, we don't know how much preparation he put into the murders, whether he went out on a particular night to murder. I would agree that it is possible that the murders were to some extent impulsive and set off by some triggering mechanism. But that in itself is a theory, isn't it, and not something that we can say for certain.
All the best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2210
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Absolute, Chris. It's just that something tells me this is the case. Call it a personal hunch, but also -- compared to other mutilation cases that exists, the most similar to those of the Ripper murders are usually done by disorganized characters.
I surprises me to hear that Hazelwood have called the Ripper "organized", since he at a couple of occasions have stated the complete opposite -- among other things in tv documentary where he is opinion unaninously.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2211
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Some typos slipped in and lot of words disappeared in my latest post:
The second passage should say:
"I surprises me to hear that Hazelwood has called the Ripper "organized", since he on a couple of occasions have stated the complete opposite -- among other things in a tv documentary where they obviously shared this opinion unanimously."
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2213
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 6:42 pm: |
|
And wrong again.
I am real sloppy today.
When I wrote: "...among other things in a tv documentary where they obviously shared this opinion unanimously", I naturally referred to him and Douglas.
All the best
S, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 8:13 pm: |
|
As this thread is about feelings, might I ask a personal question towards Chris?.
In some recent postes on a variety of subjects I detect you are becoming very much into 'symbolism', and 'messages' and things of that ilk, is this a different persona transpiring here?, or have you been a dark-horse on this kind of approach before?.
Thanks, Jon
(Message edited by Jon on November 09, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1072
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 8:44 pm: |
|
Hi Jon
Yes, he he he, I am finally coming out from behind the mask, hwah hwah hwah. 
No, really Jon, believe me, I am just testing out various ideas and trying to make sense of the same data we are all trying to sift through.
I will say that I have been influenced of late with chatting with Mr. Russo, albeit I think that Stan is a bit of a conspiracist (sorry Stan) and also reading Tom Wescott's excellent article on D'Onston about to come out in Ripperologist which makes a very strong case that D'Onston was responsible for a number of Ripper letters and may have had a hand in the crimes themselves.
As for symbolism, I would not go so far as Tom Slemen apparently is hinting about his suspect, Col. Claude Regnier Conder, an associate of Sir Charles Warren in archaeological investigations in Palestine, in seeing Sumerian symbols in the mutilations on Eddowes. However, I have long thought, for example, that the different connections of the murders to the Jews on the night of the Double Murder are not coincidental, and that there is a pattern to the crimes to be discerned on that one night at least.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 338
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 9:23 am: |
|
"I won't go into a sales pitch or anything, but I thought I'd mention that the October 2004 issue of Ripper Notes has an article by Associate Editor Wolf Vanderlinden"
Ahh Dan.. you mean I didn't get that editorial position after ALL that secret squirrel work I did involving a huge conspiracy? Damn the luck :P
Chris G -
Interesting though you and Stan have had about the apron.. it has been dually noted :P
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end."
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 355
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 11:13 pm: |
|
Hi Jason,
You mean the claims in another thread that I was obviously promising to make you an editor of the magazine so you would act as a puppet in my secret war upon the unfairly persecuted accountant who solved the Jack the Ripper mystery?
Yeah, I don't know what happened there. I mean, he's a super-genius, so he can never be wrong, but yet you didn't get an editor position. Wait, I know, he was right all along, but I changed my plan to make you the new editor after he found us out and instead gave the position to a long time well-respected contributor to the magazine just to confuse everyone. That must be it.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Malta Joe
Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 41
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 6:09 pm: |
|
I just read the Nov 8th posting about Stewart Evans' belief that the Goulston Street writing wasn't Jack's doing. I'm fairly certain that I recall him making these comments during a cable tv documentary, and his point was that the killer's objective after the Mitre Square murder was to get off the streets as quickly as possible. He was in possession of anatomical specimens and had blood on him. He had to keep moving, and he wasn't going to pause during his escape to write a sick poetic verse on a wall. I respect what Stewart Evans says very much, but I could only partially agree with him on his assessment of this matter. I concur with him that Jack didn't write that Goulston remark during his escape. I have always felt that the killer wrote it before the Mitre Square murder had occurred. The opportunity to write it was earlier in the night when the murderer had no time constraints. I think he could have calmly waited for the occasion to arrive when he could plainly see that there was no pedestrian traffic, beat-walking policemen, nor loiterers near that archway. Upon his return to Goulston Street after the Eddowes murder, Jack was either going to view the coast being clear thus enabling him to privately toss the apron into the archway, or he was going to determine the area to be too risky thus causing him to discard the apron elsewhere.
What surprised me about Evans' denial of the killer writing the graphito was that Stewart's top Ripper suspect was very well known for writing distorted poetry. Tumblety would conceive poetic verses all of his life to taunt his rivals and to promote himself. I can't ignore the fact that he once tried to pass himself off as a Jewish doctor by the name of Sternberg, who was "unceremoniously" run out of his hometown of Rochester. It's been stated how psychopaths neither feel guilt nor remorse. Is it a stretch to say this Sternberg character most likely felt that he was blamed for nothing? |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Dave,
People whom claim to be "sensitives", tend to experience what your yourself have just described (unexplained visions, strange feelings, etc.). And although I prefer not to use the title myself, as I am not all unfimilar with those experiences.
Some Parapsychologists believe in a theory called, "residual hauntings". Which basically states, that events in the past, especially dramatic ones, leave an imprint of sorts, on the surrounding area in which they occured. These events are constantly playing out, over and over again (imagine a skipping record player). And "sensitives", are sensitive to those occurances, and routienely pick up on them (hence the name).
Again. Not quite sure I subscribe to this piticular train of thought. But it's a theory I occasionally ponder. Take comfort in knowing you are not alone in your experiences.
All the best,
Dustin Gould
|
Philip Hutchinson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Oh, how quickly folk forget!!! I'm on the Council of The Ghost Club (founded by Dickens in 1862) and it was I that arranged the seminar 'A DAY WITH JACK : THE PARANORMAL ASPECTS OF THE JACK THE RIPPER CASE' in London in November (which a few of you were at). My entire lecture was on the ghost stories that have sprung up over the years about Jack. Claudia & Andy have asked me to speak at the Brighton Conference in October and deliver the lecture again to a wider audience, but if you can wait (!) I will happily give the whole paper over to Casebook after the event to be placed on the dissertations section. Incidentally, if I could be so arrogant, if anyone has questions in the meantime to do with the paranormal (in particular to do with JTR) I will do all I can to help. |
Mr. Woodhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
I just posted a message/request for information on another thread (Mary Kelly's Room) but here seems more apt. I read a book twenty years ago about murder sites in London in which is a description of a visit to the room in Millers Court.The person living there at the time describes some sort of paranormal activity in the room, a weeping picture or crucifix or suchlike. Can anyone please tell me the title of the book (british 60's or 70's) and what the apparently supernatural phenomenon was? Many thanks in anticipation.
P.S. For those who aren't aware of it,there is an astonishing new DVD available online from the BBC.It's called, I think, THE LOST WORLD OF MITCHELL AND KENYON and was recently shown on TV in three one hour parts.It consists of movie films of large groups of 'ordinary' people taken as long ago as 1900, the idea being to then charge them to see themselves on film. If you want to know what people looked like in JTR's time, get this. You will not be disappointed!!! |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
