|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 7:35 pm: | 
|
If we knew whether he ever killed men or not, we could possibly narrow down whether the killings were rage oriented or lust oriented. Is it possible that he killed men and it was never attributed him because it didn't fit preconceived ideas? Wasn't there something about a boy? |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3200
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 7:59 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
Interesting question.
However, preconceived or not, I'd say the focus on the genitalia and the womb in at least two cases does indicate some sort of sexual gratification element directed to the female body. But of course, it can never be totally ruled out; if we would find male victims with similar MO:s and signature form the same area and time, it would of course force us to look at things from different directions.
Although we would never know if those victims were products of a copycat or the actual Ripper.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 8:22 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
Glenn...ol boy....whats up?
Diana, to answer your question to the best of my knowledge....It is very unlikely that JTR killed men too. Most serial killers like ol Jacky boy
usually stick to one sex....Most often it is the sex of the person they are most attracted too.
While this is certainly not carved in stone it is the rule most of the time and every so often there is the exception. But No, I dont think Jack killed men too....Not likely using the MO that he used. A man would have probably broken his nose or something if had grabbed one by the throat. I know I would. Men are typically much stronger than women and it probably would have been too much trouble for the Ripper. Just my thoughts.
Paul
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
Well what got me thinking along those lines was that BTK killed men and women both although mostly women. So I suppose his was rage. And this whole thing belongs on the BTK thread. Sorry |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 327
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
BTK wasn't a mutilator--it was the power over his victims that got him off.
Mags
|
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Just racking my brain but didnt patricia Cornwall try to conect the death of a boy in Irland in her book. Its a long time since I read it however.
If you take Tumblety as a serious suspect then I think looking at male prostitutes for possible attacks or assaults is a good idea.
As we know there were other killings in similar parts of the Country, even in other parts of the world, that some have tried to link to Jack.
Although general concencious has Jack as a local boy I dont think we should dismiss any possibility out of hand. To my knowledge however I dont recall a male attack with an MO anything like Jacks and I think it unlikely he would attack boys.
Willing to stand corrected however if anyone has a good suspect.
Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1788
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
An excellent point
However after exhaustive research through all the murders and attempted murders of the LVP I’m afraid I was unable to find a single case of male murder that carried any resemblance to the very particular crimes of Jack the Ripper, and believe me I wanted to, as it would have made the case far more interesting. There are of course many other crimes directed against females - or their caste objects - during this period that still need investigation, and one does their best, but it is a massive task. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3207
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
True, Jeff and AP,
As far as I know I haven't come across any single male murder victim with the same traits as those in the Ripper crimes (or their copycats), so I wouldn't hold that as a real possibility either.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
Perhaps he did not attack men because he feared they would hurt him? Attacking mostly elderly or sick prostitutes (who apparently he killed from behind) was certainly not suggestive of any real bravery. Even Mary Kelly was somewhat off guard when killed (in her room in bed).
Fascetiously (a bit) I wove a fantasy a few weeks back about a quote I once read in a book about Neville Heath, in which the author suggested Heath, Christie, and Haigh in an alley that a woman has to pass through. Nobody ever commented on this (maybe deservedly it was not commented on) but I suggested what if three female murderers entered the same alley to confront these three male ones. One of the three women I suggested was Belle Gunness. If you have ever seen photos of Belle Gunness she was a stout, strong woman (reports of how she could slaughter pigs or chop wood exist). None of the Ripper's suspected female victims mirror Ms Gunness. I don't think he would have dared face a woman with that kind of build.
Jeff |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 548
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 12:16 am: |
|
Chikatilo was a sexual mutilation serial killer who also killed males. Gary Ridgway's (the Green River Killer) first attempted murder (and he thought it was successful, it wasn't until after he was caught and confessed to it and the police followed up on it that they learned the victim survived) was a boy, and was done just for the fun of it.
Others, like BTK, can kill males if it helps further their goals. If, say, A PC had wandered upon Jack before he had a chance to flee, I doubt he would have refused to kill a man if it might help him escape.
Jack certainly could have killed men in the right circumstances, but whether he would get any special satisfaction of it is another thing entirely.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 8:56 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
"Jack certainly could have killed men in the right circumstances, but whether he would get any special satisfaction of it is another thing entirely."
>>Mr. Norder's argument goes like this: 1. Chikatilo, Ridgeway and JtR were sexual serial murderers. 2. Chikatilo and Ridgeway killed men. 3. Therefore JtR could have killed men. But this argument is valid only if JtR were like Chikatilo and Ridgeway, and we don't know that he was sufficiently, because he wasn't ever caught. Therefore the argument is invalid.
Alternative: Predicate what you claim about the evidence on the evidence. Don't crank in generic information that you can't be sure applies to JtR.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 559
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 2:41 pm: |
|
No, David. For someone who talks about philosophy and claims to be a genius all the time you sure have a poor grasp of how logic works.
The general argument goes:
1) SSKs don't kill men.
2) Jack was a SSK.
3) Jack therefore couldn't kill men.
If one or both premises is incorrect, the conclusion is incorrect. What I did was prove the first part wrong (while others would attack the second), which means the conclusion is wrong.
Thus Jack could have killed men, barring any logical reason to assume otherwise. Nobody has given us any such a reason.
You claim I argued this:
1. Chikatilo, Ridgeway and JtR were sexual serial murderers.
2. Chikatilo and Ridgeway killed men.
3. Therefore JtR could have killed men.
That's not actually what I argued, but it's fairly solid as long as another argument is there supporting Jack's SSK status.
But the problem you fall down on here is assuming that point 3 there (Jack could have killed men) is something that needs to be proven. When you are discussing reasonable possibilities, all possibilities are valid unless you have a solid reason to go against that idea.
If we are talking about an unknown person, that person could be male or female unless you have solid evidence to knock one of those options out. If we are talking about whether a killer could kill males and/or females, it could be either or both unless you have a reason to disbelieve it.
If you want to claim that he couldn't have killed men (or make any other claim of a solid conclusion in this case), then you need to support that idea logically. It's tedious how you keep trying to ignore that fact.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 144
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Are there any (unsolved, or potentially wrongly attributed) killings of male victims (in 1888 period, in London, or elsewhere) that might fit JtR's presumed MO?
If there are not, what's the point of the discussion?
In pragmatic mood,
Phil |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 145
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
PS, I see AP has already answered the question. Thanks.
Phil |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 9:50 pm: |
|
I'm of the belief that, although Jack directed his attacks on the womb and genitalia, I don't feel he took any sexual gratification from it. Nor did he become sexually aroused. There were no objects inserted into the body post-mortem, nor was there any seamen present. Two things that might have indicated such a state. I feel the attacks directed in those areas, did more to demonstrate a patholigical hatred of women, more than anything resembling sexual arousal.
I feel male prostitutes would have been the last class of person Tumblety would have attacked, were he indeed "The Ripper". Just based on the notion, that he reportedly adopted a homosexual lifestyle, after finding his wife working in a brothel. That, coupled with his openly distasteful comments about women in general (the content of which bordering on patholigical hatred), lead me to believe that male prostitutes, and men in general, would have been "safe" in his company. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote: “The general argument goes:
1) SSKs don't kill men.
2) Jack was a SSK.
3) Jack therefore couldn't kill men.
If one or both premises is incorrect, the conclusion is incorrect. What I did was prove the first part wrong (while others would attack the second), which means the conclusion is wrong. Thus Jack could have killed men, barring any logical reason to assume otherwise. Nobody has given us any such a reason.”
>>Your argument stated clearly thus amounts to:
1. Some SSKs are man-killing capable.
2. JtR was a SSK.
3. Therefore JtR was man-killing capable.
But this is an invalid form of logical argument. Just because some SSks are man-killing capable doesn’t mean all are. In order for JtR to be man-killing capable, he’d have to be essentially like those SSKs known to be man-killing capable, such as Chikatilo and Ridgeway. But we don’t know if he was; we have no evidence on this matter, because he was never identified and examined.
Thus your statements: “Thus Jack could have killed men, barring any logical reason to assume otherwise. Nobody has given us any such a reason” are not justified by the logical arguments you offer. They are not truth but illusion. You claim to offer logical support for the proposition that JtR could have been man-killing capable, but you do not.
All of this is the same as I pointed out earlier.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 568
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 8:22 pm: |
|
Yes, David, all of that was the same and still wrong.
My argument (as compared to my counter-argument to other people's arguments, already posted above) actually goes like this:
1) If no proof exists one way or another, then it is impossible to say something is a fact.
2) No good evidence exists that Jack the Ripper could not have killed any men.
3) Thus Jack the Ripper could have killed men.
Saying that a known killer could have killed males and females is a neutral statement. It's not saying he did kill males, nor is it saying that he wouldn't have. It's the middle ground.
The middle ground, a concept you apparently are unaware of, is an area that accepts a wide variety of opinions and interpretations as possible but unproven one way or another. Until things are proven, that's where everyone who respects the rules of evidence and logic has to sit.
Sating a position outside of the middle ground is basically saying that, of all the things in that middle ground concerning this topic, only one of them is right, and the rest are all wrong. When someone tries to do that and wants others to accept it as factual, he or she is expected to provide very good evidence to support that conclusion before anyone else can be expected to abandon the middle ground. You have not provided evidence to support your statement, so the middle ground wins by default.
This is just the way the world works, David. I know you have posted elsewhere that you dislike empiricism and the basic underlying principles of science and reason, but then if you want to try to make claims about things being proven or unproven, you need to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 273
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:04 pm: |
|
"As far as I know I haven't come across any single male murder victim with the same traits as those in the Ripper crimes (or their copycats), so I wouldn't hold that as a real possibility either." A.P.
In Philadelphia on 2/28/03, a man was eviscerated in our city. I compiled a story about it in the July '04 Ripper Notes from an article in a local magazine and some tidbits of my own.
A man named Pete Kent had three organs removed after being garroted. His eviscerated torso was left in a trash heap in the Badlands [ pretty scary area at night ]. A forensic anthropologist was called in by the local police to assist them as it made them think it could have been ritualistic. So far,after two years,no arrests have been made. The press have forgotten about the case.
Is this the sort of murder you were referring to A.P. ?
How Brown
JTRForums
www.jtrforums.co.uk
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3266
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:23 pm: |
|
Howard,
That wasn't AP:s statement, but mine, so you addressed that to the wrong individual!
No, How, that is not what I had in mind. What I meant was that we can't to our knowledge find a male murder victim with those same Ripper mutilating traits in London, at that particular time! All known mutilated bodies or torsos in this context have proven female.
If you look internationally you can probably find several examples, but my point was that we know of no such male mutilated victims in the London area during 1888 or the years before or after -- only female ones.
It doesn't necessarily rule out that the Ripper could have killed men (of course there could be victims or disappeared people we don't know about and whom were unrecorded), but it lowers the possibility to quite a large degree, especially considering how unusual it is in general anyway.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 274
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:39 pm: |
|
Sorry about that Glenn. I got my people mixed up.
How Brown
JTRForums
www.jtrforums.co.uk
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 569
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
If you are saying that no men were found with their wombs removed, I naturally can't argue with that...
But seriously, your assumption there is based upon the concept that if Jack had killed a male that he would have had to do it in the same way he killed the victims we know about. That doesn't necessarily hold true, not when compared to other killers who have killed males and females. The Green River Killer, one of my examples mentioned above, picked an alternate method of attempted murder when he attacked a boy in a park. The BTK killer tried to kill a victim's brother with gunshot wounds to the head. And those would just be the ones I can think of off the top of my head. (I'm starting to think I need to start up a spreadsheet of known serial killers and their methods so I can more efficiently smash down the conventional wisdom every time one of these topics gets going.)
And heck, as proven time and time again, killers can switch their methods from victim to victim even when the gender of the target stays the same.
Jack the Ripper could have a list of victims substantially larger than the ones that are most closely linked. That proved to be the case with a lot of serial killers after they ended up caught, and the reason the other victims weren't linked before then was faulty reasoning on behalf of the investigators about what to look for. I don't know of a logical reason why a man couldn't be on the list, though I suspect if one were it would be in a different capacity than the main victims we know about -- someone who got too close to finding out about him and was dispatched quickly without a mess, a robbery victim who died of the wounds, a rival of some sort, who knows.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3269
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
That is of course true -- although I believe looking at those with the same characteristics would be my first choice,
if there were any. 
But the problem does exceed even the arguments about method and MO; I wonder if we even can find a male murder victim -- mutilated or not -- at all during this period, in the context of an unsolved murder.
And if we could, should we automatically consider a male stabbed robbery victim (for example), killed in a povert-stricken area that even the police hesitated to walk alone, as a possibility for being a Ripper victim just because a serial killer can "change method"? After all, even though we have a number of examples where serial killers have indeed methods extensively from victim to victim (I certainly can't argue against that fact!), it is not really that common. In general a mutilating killer stays with the method and signature that he is comfortable with -- it becomes learnt behaviour and the mutilations are usually themselves of the great importance, not the MO.
We have discussed this before, and I believe we have different opinions about this.
My point here was (although I only mentioned mutilations) that we don't even appear to have any unsolved murders on males during this time period.
But as I said, there is a possibility that there is a number of "lost" victims out there, who consists of disappearing people or unrecorded events, and males could of course be included among those. It must also be noted that the crime and death statistics involving murders could be inconclusive and therefore might hide victims we don't know about.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 177
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 2:30 am: |
|
I'm with Glenn here. The burden of evidence is on those who think JtR might have killed men, to come up with a case from the period and in a likely place which we can consider.
Without such a starting point, that is IMHO even more of a red-herring discussion than many.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on March 13, 2005) |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 551
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
I know there was something about a boy out in the countryside in England somewhere. If only I could remember. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
Hi All,
The ripper could well have killed animals, but finding direct evidence of this would be next to impossible, without even knowing who he was.
I think the best we could say is that the ripper could - and IMHO certainly would - have killed men too, in certain circumstances. But it appears that there is no evidence that he was ever faced with those circumstances.
I believe anyone intruding on the scene of an actual mutilation, with the ripper in full flow, would have put themselves in mortal peril.
Ditto for anyone coming across obvious murder trophies in the ripper's den, and the ripper catching them at it.
Ditto for anyone coming too close for comfort to penetrating the ripper's comfort zone.
Going out purposefully to find male victims to murder and mutilate? Probably a different kettle of fish altogether. There were young boys a-plenty, weak from malnourishment and neglect, willing to sell themselves in Jack's killing fields - but Jack wasn't interested.
One reason I reject Tumblety, who is known to have committed gross indecency with youths - wouldn't his known interest, or rather disinterest, in the physical and emotional abuse of young men have been confined to young men if extended to murder and mutilation?
Love,
Caz
X |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1846
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Thank heavens I didn’t say that!
I’ve no problem with Jack attacking male victims, as I said earlier on, it would make the case more interesting.
Those victims would probably be defensive attacks though, but as you may know I tend to think all of Jack’s crimes might have been defensive rather than offensive.
Searching through the available archives I was unable to find a male murder during that short period of the LVP that might have matched the Whitechapel series, I was however able to find numerous maniacs and murderers who targeted females, none of which are ever floated as suspects on these boards, and quite honestly I would like to see more of these long lost names under discussion.
One young chap - an artist if you please, of the modern French school - I found had been thrown on the Calais-Dover ferry by the French authorities simply because his father had been English, after being disinterred from a lunatic asylum in France, and was found on Waterloo station by the police and arrested as an obvious lunatic at large.
Now what was his name?
Oh yes, I remember now:
Jaque. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 553
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
If Jack's killings had been rage oriented wouldn't we have found at least one boy in Whitechapel who was a victim? Doesn't this point to another motive? |
Poorhoney
Police Constable
Username: Poorhoney
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 2:35 pm: |
|
AP,
Why do you tend to think JTR's attacks were more defensive than offensive? In all of my reading I have never once thought that and the idea intrigues me.
Poorhoney
Punxsutawney Phil is a groundhog!
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Funny that you should post that right then, as I've just posted a Times notation on the Cutbush thread with a perfect example of what I would call a 'defensive' attack.
Perhaps if Robert could put down his tea and fag he might post the article to illustrate the point I have been trying to make? |
Poorhoney
Police Constable
Username: Poorhoney
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
I should have been a little more clear in my question; what exactly makes you think that JtR's attacks were defensive? Is there a certain clue, etc. that influences your thinking on this subject? I am most curious.
Poorhoney
Punxsutawney Phil is a groundhog!
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “My argument (as compared to my counter-argument to other people's arguments, already posted above) actually goes like this:
1) If no proof exists one way or another, then it is impossible to say something is a fact.
2) No good evidence exists that Jack the Ripper could not have killed any men.
3) Thus Jack the Ripper could have killed men.”
>>This is both illogical and irrational. Absent specific empirical evidence concerning him that JtR was man-killer capable, you are limited to two possible logical arguments to try to establish your proposition, and two only. These are:
1. All SSKs are man-killer capable.
2. JtR was a SSK.
3. Therefore JtR was man-killer capable.
The argument has a valid form, but (1) is a false premise. In fact not all SSKs are man-killer capable. For example, Ted Bundy. Psychiatric examination of Bundy indicated that he was a psychopath who felt slighted because his mother passed herself off to him as his sister. When he found this out by researching public records, he began to hate women and set out to take revenge on them for what he considered his mother to have done to him. As a SSK, he was not interested in men in the slightest. (This of course wouldn’t have stopped him from killing a man if the man had found him out and was about to turn him in, however. But in this case Bundy would be killing the man as a cornered criminal wishing to avoid arrest, not as a SSK.) Because Bundy was not man-killer capable, the argument cannot establish JtR as man-killer capable.
And thus the only other logical argument available is:
1. Some SSKs are man-killer capable.
2. JtR was a SSK.
3. Therefore JtR was man-killer capable.
But this is an invalid form of argument, as we established earlier on this thread. Just because some SSKs are man-killer capable (for example, Ridgeway) that doesn’t mean all of them are. Bundy wasn’t. Thus the argument cannot establish JtR as man-killer capable.
That’s it, Mr. Norder. No other logical possibilities regarding this matter beyond these two are granted by the culture that generated us. Therefore, there is no way for anyone to say whether or not JtR was man-killer capable absent specific empirical evidence about him personally in regard to this matter. Therefore your conclusion:
“Thus Jack the Ripper could have killed men.”
…is INVALID. Your argument is a fraud, Mr. Norder, and merely an illusion you have projected on your readers.
2. “Saying that a known killer could have killed males and females is a neutral statement. It's not saying he did kill males, nor is it saying that he wouldn't have. It's the middle ground.”
>>Yours is certainly NOT a neutral statement, nor a middle ground. The capability, or lack of it, on the part of a male SSK to kill men is an empirical matter. It is a characteristic that either applies or doesn’t apply to a specific individual, and which can either be found in his history or discerned by a psychiatrist on examination. In the same sense, my cat either has white fur, or it doesn’t.
3. “The middle ground, a concept you apparently are unaware of, is an area that accepts a wide variety of opinions and interpretations as possible but unproven one way or another. Until things are proven, that's where everyone who respects the rules of evidence and logic has to sit.”
>>The middle ground in this matter is:
(My proposition): “We don’t know whether or not JtR was man-killer capable.”
and is NOT:
(Your proposition): “Jack the Ripper could have killed men.”
Your affirmation of the proposition that JtR could have killed men is illogical.
4. “Stating a position outside of the middle ground is basically saying that, of all the things in that middle ground concerning this topic, only one of them is right, and the rest are all wrong. When someone tries to do that and wants others to accept it as factual, he or she is expected to provide very good evidence to support that conclusion before anyone else can be expected to abandon the middle ground. You have not provided evidence to support your statement, so the middle ground wins by default.”
>>Fair enough, except that the middle ground in this matter is:
(My proposition): “We don’t know whether or not JtR was man-killer capable.”
and is NOT:
(Your proposition): “Jack the Ripper could have killed men.”
5. “This is just the way the world works, David.”
>>It is certainly NOT the way either the world or logic works.
6. “I know you have posted elsewhere that you dislike empiricism and the basic underlying principles of science and reason, but then if you want to try to make claims about things being proven or unproven, you need to play by the same rules as everyone else.”
>>I have posted nothing of the sort. My A?R solution is based logically soundly on the whole of the empirical evidence of the case. If you think I have posted that I “dislike empiricism and the basic underlying principles of science and reason,” please copy and paste these statements of mine here for all of us to read.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 574
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Sorry, David. You just don't understand the concept of logic, and the more you try to argue it the less sense you make. The two sentences above you declare as opposites are actually just rewording of the same concept. Neither one is what you were arguing previously, you claimed that Jack could not have killed men. Your arguments don't make sense, and the little there that does actually contradicts your earlier posts.
And the whole "I didn't say what I just very clearly said recently and will deny it and argue that to try to derail the conversation" ploy is really old. You tried that with half a dozen topics in the closed A?R thread and got proven wrong on all of them.
All anyone has to do to find your statements against the principles of science and reason is search for the phrase "British Empiricism" (I'd say "logic schmogic" too, but then apparently you used a nonstandard spelling of that or something because it's not turning up). It's all right there.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2037
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
David,
you sound like a stuck record.
Jenni
"Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times"
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1863
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
PH
If you read the article from The Times kindly posted by Robert on the Thomas Cutbush thread, it should give you a general idea of what I mean when I talk about a ‘defensive’ attack rather than an offensive attack.
In this particular case the young man was obviously approached by the much older lady - reading between the lines, and examining the various witness statements it does appear as if she was a prostitute and well past her sell by date - as they met in the street after midnight. A normal response to such an encounter would be for the young man to say ‘thanks but no thanks’ and go on his way, however as you can see in this case his reaction was immediate and extreme aggression, punching the old duck so violently that she actually flew over a yard and half and then died from the blow.
Such actions speak of some deep-rooted anger directed against women, but one has to notice that this extreme anger has to be provoked. If the old duck had just passed the young man by and not said a word, he would not have struck her so terribly.
I have always seen the crimes of Jack the Ripper as having in their essential and elemental basis a deep childish anger directed against more mature women, but it would have to be provoked first by some form of forced contact with such a woman; and certainly in all of the crimes accredited to Jack that took place outdoors I can see such an anger.
|
Poorhoney
Police Constable
Username: Poorhoney
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
I actually do know the difference between a defensive and offensive attack and I have read the article you referred me to. If I understood your response it isn't any particular clue that influences your thinking, so much as the nature of the crime.
PH
Punxsutawney Phil is a groundhog!
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1563
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
|
Hi AP,
As I've said before, your little Jack Horner must have been quite the glutton for punishment, coming out of his safe corner to walk the whore-happy streets of Whitechapel by night.
Or was he taken totally by surprise every time he found himself at the mercy of yet another of these troublesome witches trying it on?
Somehow, the picture of fearsome Annie dragging a reluctant, whimpering Jack by his hair into the backyard of 29 Hanbury, and Jack being forced to take defensive action - to wit, nearly decapitating his tormentor and removing her bits and pieces - just doesn't work for me.
Full scenario please.
Love,
Caz
X |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4264
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Caz, I think that, leaving aside Stride as a grey area, the provocation theory works quite well for Nichols and Eddowes. With Kelly, it's not so good - but I think that all theories have problems with Kelly, and I don't see the difficulties as being insurmountable.
But it's Chapman who's the fly in the ointment. I don't think that AP and I are forced to hold the provocation theory, but if we do advance it, then I grant you it's incumbent on us to provide a plausible scenario whereby it could work.
One suggestion : it's quite possible that the murderer's mental state declined between August and November, and this may have affected his way of working as time went on.
Robert |
Poorhoney
Police Constable
Username: Poorhoney
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Hi All!
I have been reading about the Whitechapel murders for years and the thought that the attacks were defensive had never once crossed my mind. The entire argument is akin to blaming the victim which I do not believe AP and Robert are trying to do. The one thought that will not leave me is Ted Bundy's rationalization of "Hey, I never forced them to get into the VW, they entered willingly."
I am afraid I must respectfully disagree with using the term "defensive" to describe these murders, unless some better arguments can be put forth.
-Honey
Punxsutawney Phil is a groundhog!
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1867
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
By provocation I do not mean some kind of dominating or aggressive approach from the woman concerned. Here I mean something that could be so subtle or innocuous that it might pass unnoticed to folk of normal sanity, merely that a woman might say something in passing - as happened in the case Robert posted - and this small comment would be enough to hit the triggers and switches of such a repressed, confused and frustrated young man.
We all know that the young man in the case posted, over-reacted to the normal situation he found himself in, after all he was walking through a whore infested area very late at night and he was bound to be approached at some point in his ‘ramblings’ by a woman seeking financial compensation for sexual favours.
The young man turned back to the older woman, walked back to her you must note, and then punched her so violently that he actually knocked her across the road, and subsequently killed her.
This was no Jack Horner, no little wimp being dragged by his hair. This was an extremely violent and dangerous young man who would have definitely continued his murderous attack on the older woman if he had not been disturbed by witnesses.
But the attacker was a child of seventeen, barely out of his school shorts, but in the privacy of his attack he became suddenly mature, an adult now fully in control of a situation by using his physical strength. Until the moment of attack he had been a child… that is why the old whore approached him. Easy meat for her.
She may have only chided him by saying something like ‘what’s a little boy like you doing out so late?’ but that would have been enough to have thrown all them triggers and switches, and then the old whore had a fully grown monster on her hands which she could in no way control.
Yes, despite flak, I do see Jack exactly like this.
A young man who would pass a whore with absolutely no intention to do her harm, but if she so much as asked him the time, he would slaughter her like a pig.
A young man who used smoke and mirrors to hide away from the world, and to enter his tiny little vacuum of life would be to lose it. |
Poorhoney
Police Constable
Username: Poorhoney
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Funny how people view the same event completely different from one another--I always thought of JtR as "trolling" for a victim!
Poorhoney
Punxsutawney Phil is a groundhog!
|
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 12:19 am: |
|
Poor Punxsutawney Phil...how would YOU liked to be dragged out of bed on the morning of 2 February??? Perish the thought.
Poorhoney, I have to agree with your view, even though I understand completely what Mr Wolf is saying.....who of us knows what might be a threat to someone who guts women for fun in his spare time?? A sideways glance, an off-hand remark, or even a cough, might just be enough to be viewed as a threat to someone whose elevator doesn't reach the top floor; possibly we all (even DR) could agree that the phantom known as Jack the Ripper falls into the category of the oh-so-elegantly-called "a bit of a nutter"? Who can say what might be viewed as threatening by someone like that?? NOT ME!!! And, as everyone who knows me knows, I'm as "sane" as they come.........OR maybe not!
Anyway, "hi" to everyone, and PLEASE do not get bogged down in this circular argument, Dan......we've all been there before.
NOW go check out the US Conference 2006 site that Stephen set up for us....http://www.casebook.org/2006
Judy |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1570
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 9:18 am: |
|
Hi AP,
A young man who would pass a whore with absolutely no intention to do her harm, but if she so much as asked him the time, he would slaughter her like a pig.
Fair enough - so how would you say this phenomenonandon  manifests itself in Hanbury Street? Exactly where and when does Annie put her foot in it and trigger Jack's murderous backlash? Is it before they disappear together into the backyard, or once they are there? I see problems with both, which won't surprise you.
Hi Robert,
If the provocation theory could work for Polly, it doesn't appear to work for Annie. I can see how it could work for Liz, but then if she was indeed killed by this version of Jack, it wouldn't then work for Kate, because I'd have thought the silly boy would have gone straight home to his comfort blanket after the horror of Berner Street, not run straight into double trouble with Kate in Mitre Square. So yes, Kate might work if Liz slings her hook.
And then, as you say, there's Mary Kelly.
So many theorists, all puzzling, "What are we going to do about the Kelly woman?"
And no, they can't all just dump her onto Joe B.
Love,
Caz
X |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4275
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 9:58 am: |
|
Hi Caz
Fair point - why didn't he just go home after Liz? Well, maybe his initial reaction was just to get clear of the area. The anger may have remained, stronger for being unsatisfied, so that when Kate approached him, she copped the lot.
Fair point too about why would he go out at nights when he knew it would all end in tears. By the same token, if he was wandering around the east end most nights, why didn't he kill more?
This is a three cuppa problem, Caz.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1871
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:35 pm: |
|
I don’t know about a three cuppa problem, Robert, this sounds more like it could use a bottle of Spanish brandy.
Caz
Yes, good point, but that is assuming the chap seen talking to Annie was her killer? That gives a time period of 30 minutes for either sexual contact or her murder to take place, according to witness testimony (I think?).
I don’t think a knee trembler in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street would have taken 30 minutes, more like four minutes I would reckon, and as we see from later examples it certainly didn’t take Jack 30 minutes to kill and mutilate a whore.
So what was the punter doing for 30 minutes with Annie in that backyard?
The timing certainly seems to allow for several things to have occurred, but hey I’m no conjurer or profiler so I don’t honestly know.
The fact that 30 minutes are available does seem to allow for another encounter to have taken place, of which we are blissfully unaware.
I’m not very up on the turn-over rate for whores of the LVP but I know me modern Whitechapel whores keenly, and their average turn-over rate is four chaps an hour. The word ‘turn-over’ seems very appropriate in this particular case.
I am acutely aware of the problems associated with this ‘pinball’ Jack, especially with regard to Mary Kelly, but stuff that is filtering out of court transcripts and other sources is encouraging rather than damning.
For instance the young chap I found from the LVP - who still may yet prove to be a relative of THC, I was hoping Debra would confirm this but we have not heard from her for some time now - who actually entered a house and attacked a woman with a small axe was quite a revelation, for if I was to have examined his behaviour prior to this terrible assault I would have said that no way would this young chap have ever entered a house to attack a woman, but he did… so I’m not totally pessimistic.
The last case that Robert posted involving the 17 year old kid and the out-of-date whore was I thought pivotal to this whole concept.
So, yes, Caz, a fair broadside but the ship still sails.
I do appreciate your valuable input.
One should always have brakes. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1575
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 4:35 am: |
|
Hi AP,
I'm not sure I follow you about Hanbury Street - how is all this relevant to my original question?
Let's see if I can make myself clearer.
Somehow, Jack ended up with Annie in that backyard. If it was there that she did something which sent him into attack mode, why did he accompany her there in the first place? What did he think the idea was? To have tea and toast together in the yard watching the sun come up?
On the other hand, if Annie sealed her fate while still out on the street, how did it ever get to the stage of the couple deciding to go through to the back of No.29 for that knee trembler? Wouldn't he have struck out instantly in his disgust, or run away from the lewd and hideous creature?
Do you honestly see your boy containing himself and not arousing any suspicions while he allows this hag to lead him up the garden path to her own destruction?
Sorry to push you, but I just need to see how your theory works here.
Ah, I've just had a thought. Are you hinting at a suggestion that Annie was already in the backyard when Jack happened to be minding his own business nipping over the back fences and came across her there alone, powdering her nose after her last customer had taken his leave?
If so, it's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 5:43 am: |
|
I wonder if Annie,who had been refused her room by Donovan,had made her way to 29 Hanbury Street,knowing that
-both front and back doors were left open at night
-that it was possible to kip on the stairs or upstairs landing for a few hours-as was the case for the landing where Martha Tabram was found
-this being the case might not Annie have simply heard John Richardson come checking,got up and "checked out" to avoid him, and then nipped back in quick for a pee in the loo when the coast was relatively clear.
Jack meanwhile,who was young and athletic, may have been practising nipping over the back walls of Hanbury Street in readiness for future quick escapes -perhaps rounding off an entire night of cexploration and preparation of Whitechapel ,when,wham bang,surprise,surprise, he encountered Annie, either entering or exiting the loo
e This shock encounter [for both ]caused the "fear and flee" syndrome resulting in Jack drawing his knife[which he always kept handy]on the "intruder" which culminated in him having one of his mad"turns".And that was the end of poor Annie Chapman.
- |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1887
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Caz
I was merely concerned about the 30 minutes time gap available in this particular case and thinking that all manner of things could have happened in those 30 minutes.
I mean Jack could have gone to Mitre Square and slaughtered four whores in that half hour, and still got back in time to deal with Annie.
Remember that Polly said she had earnt her 'doss money' three times that day?
Which probably means that 'night', and that probably means she achieved that rate in an hour or so of trawling around Whitechapel.
Basically Caz, that spare half hour needs a lot of explaining.
It appears that neither you or I can explain that.
Natalie
I like the idea of a fence and backyard hopping Jack, for we do know a certain chap who did that very thing in Whitechapel in 1888.
We must not forget the method of young Tom's escape from his captors at the loony bin, that tells a story indeed.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
I give up, AP.
I wasn't asking about this 30 minute time gap - I was simply asking for your interpretation of the initial encounter between Jack and Annie; the where, not the when - in particular, where the provocation would have occurred that launched him off into fatal attack mode.
I'm really trying to make some sense of it, and the only explanation offered so far is Natalie's. Are you sticking with the fence hopping scenario then?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1712
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Hi Caz and AP,
Well I have been wondering if its as far fetched as it may appear.
Hanbury Street backyard abutted a cow field and most cowfields have both mud and cow pats galore.
Now both Thomas Cutbush"s Mother and Aunt were extremely upset about Thomas taking off every night somewhere-they didnt know where, and returning covered in mud [and possibly-reading between the lines-"cowpats"]what they said was"what looked like mud all over him".
This same Thomas was adept at fence and backwall hopping as can be read in the Colindale
Newspaper Library"s Sun Newspaper accounts of 1894.His escape from the authorities by racing into a house in only his night shirt from the Asylum and changing himself in great haste into another man"s clothes[who he didnt know from Adam]
enabled him to simply walk calmly out of the house in the other mans clothes and escape unnoticed! Once away from the baying crowd who were trying help the police to catch him he showed an astounding agility and strength by literally leaping over the fences and walls like a champion hurdler before speeding away to safety.Not bad for someone considered to be beyond help.This made me wonder too about whether,if he could be so highly imaginative on the spur of the moment as this might he not also be capable of fooling people with the "mud" or whatever it was he smeared on himself -might not this "mud" be concealing something more sinister?
Natalie |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 9:17 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “Sorry, David. You just don't understand the concept of logic, and the more you try to argue it the less sense you make.”
>>Hold it right there, Mr. Norder. I have a M.A. degree in philosophy from Trinity College in 1984 with Distinction, and was a Graduate Assistant in Logic at Penn State. I have taken two graduate-level courses in logic, and have graded a total of three undergraduate courses in two different kinds of logic. I am well familiar with how logic works, from arguments in ordinary language, to categorical syllogisms, to predicate logic. Please give us your credentials in logic as I have, including if applicable the institution from which you graduated, your degree, and the year.
2. “The two sentences above you declare as opposites are actually just rewording of the same concept.”
>>They are certainly NOT the same concept. It is one thing to say that JtR possessed the ability to be a man-killer (your proposition), and quite another to say we don’t know whether or not he did (my proposition). (This is an empirical matter, and we do not possess adequate information about JtR to determine a conclusion on it.)
3. “Neither one is what you were arguing previously, you claimed that Jack could not have killed men. Your arguments don't make sense, and the little there that does actually contradicts your earlier posts.”
>>Please copy and paste my text where I argued that JtR could not have killed men. (I have not made such a claim. The statement by Mr. Norder that I have is an outright lie on his part.)
4. “And the whole "I didn't say what I just very clearly said recently and will deny it and argue that to try to derail the conversation" ploy is really old. You tried that with half a dozen topics in the closed A?R thread and got proven wrong on all of them.”
No, that’s what YOU did. I have no intention of “derailing” this conversation. I’m quite content to continue it, as over time it provides your readers real insight into your personality. I like reading what you write! It helps keep me brushed up on my epistemological work.
5. “All anyone has to do to find your statements against the principles of science and reason is search for the phrase "British Empiricism" (I'd say "logic schmogic" too, but then apparently you used a nonstandard spelling of that or something because it's not turning up). It's all right there.”
>>Please copy and paste it here for us, in a manner sensitive to its context, providing full citations. (Obviously, I have no such positions as you claim.)
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
