|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 235
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 7:11 pm: | 
|
Hi Glenn,
Yes, you're right about Chapman and Eddowes. I was just speaking of a general trend. The first murder being in the open, the middle three being in somewhat confined areas and the last being totally confined. That is, if one thinks there were five JTR murders which I know you don't.
I'd also concur to some degree that a domestic murder would be a little less likely to be solved 120 years ago but most were solved even back then.
Regards,
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3851
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 7:23 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
"I'd also concur to some degree that a domestic murder would be a little less likely to be solved 120 years ago but most were solved even back then."
Absolutely true.
However, most of them weren't happening in a context where a mutilating serial killer was operating, and that the police was desperate to catch, under great pressure from the press and the general public.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 675
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 10:19 pm: |
|
"And a police force clearing their books."
AP--Have you considered the reverse? In the case of Comrade Chikatilo, one of the murders he almost certainly did commit (and one he confessed to doing) was removed from the indictment...much to the fury of the investigating officer. If such things can be judged in cold print, this officer seemed like an honorable bloke, and I tend to believe his story. It seems that there was a wee problem with this particular murder. You see, it happened in another city; the local authorities there had already arrested, convicted, and executed another man for the crime. The 'evidence' was entirely coerced, and they had even put a Russian mobster in the man's cell to beat out a confession. A few years later, just before Chikatilo's trial for something like 57 counts of murder, the authorities realzied this botched up job, and he was secretly interviewed by the officials at this other city, and lo, Chikitilo recants that one particular confession. The indictment now read 56 counts. The Red Ripper evidently swung a deal; the officials don't get embarrassed, and he gets some extra peas in his soup.
By the way, the official in the other city said he had created a 'remarkably accurate' profile of the unknown killer, a startling match for Chikatilo. Unfortunately, in the 60 volumes of evidence collected, no one could find any record of this 'profile.' You dont' suppose that happens in the Free World do you? RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on August 04, 2005) |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 236
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 11:50 pm: |
|
Hi RP,
Yes, I remember that one. If I recall, Chikatilo was even seen in the area at the time but they decided to put that other guy in the frame because he lived nearby and he'd once been convicted of child molestation.
Regards,
Stan |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 131
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 5:06 am: |
|
Perhaps not strictly appropriate to this thread,but in evaluating the reason's for killing,take into account the Public Hangman.Wasn't he operating in England at the time,and can he be classed as a serial killer? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1984
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 8:55 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
The main point here (about MJK) is that for it to have been "domestic", it would have to be someone she knew. I don't think the police at the time were totally inept in these kinds of cases. Clearly they were more out of their depth when it came to serial killers, and cases where the perpetrator did not know his victim at all, or only tangentially.
Yes, and the fact that they were as much out of their depth with MJK's murder as the previous three murders (which most people accept were serial crimes, committed by stranger on stranger) doesn't really help the 'domestic' theory in my view.
Hi Glenn,
You must consider the context here, with papers and tabloid magazines spitting out news about the murders and rather detailed (although often exaggerated) descriptions of the mutilations of the victims, especially Eddowes. The authorities of the time, not least one of the doctors, had great fears that this would influence 'weak minds', which is also why they didn't reveal all those details at the inquests.
But remember that we already know one 'weak mind' out there, almost certainly not unaware of the sensation he was creating for the papers and therefore his public. If the reporting of the previous crimes could have influenced a friend of MJK's to murder her Ripper-style, don't you think that it certainly would have influenced a mind like Jack's to go on to greater efforts?
As Helge wrote:
I totally agree with you on context and hysteria. Exactly why I think the real Jack NEEDED a grande finale.
You wrote:
If Mary Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim, I believe Mary kelly was killed in some lover's dispute and then her murderer came up with the idea - maybe in sheer desperation - to turn it into a Ripper murder the way he knew best, in order to blame it on the Ripper. He knew that the police were on the look-out for the Ripper and if another extreme mutilation case popped up at this time, he could be sure of that they would buy it.
And then, being a domestic, with the victim killed in her own room (which even in those days tended to be solved pretty swiftly), your man would have faced, as a consequence of being routinely questioned, the very real possibility of being arrested, charged and convicted of being Jack the Ripper! AP is always telling us about cases where men got off very lightly for teaching their shrewish wives or girlfriends violent - even fatal - lessons. But there is little doubt that the hangman was waiting for whoever did that Jacky style number on Mary.
However, most [domestic murders] weren't happening in a context where a mutilating serial killer was operating, and that the police was desperate to catch, under great pressure from the press and the general public.
Be careful here. You don't know that MJK's murder was a domestic that happened in such a context. Chances are, IMHO, that it was very much a part of that context, and that Jack had just taken his work to another level, increasing the pressure and the desperation.
The difficulty with making comparisons with examples of particularly horrific cases of domestic murder is that, by definition, none of the killers in your examples managed to get away with it. So there is absolutely no way of knowing if there has ever been a case of unsolved domestic murder that resembles MJK when it comes to the basics - ie ripped apart in her own room after a recent relationship break-up, and unprecedented attention from a shocked and angry world, demanding that her killer be found and brought to justice.
Love,
Caz
X |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 9:30 am: |
|
Everything that has been said here about the growth of modern media is true and we certainly have a much greater awareness on the whole than previous generations did.
However, balanced against that is the fact that a couple of centuries ago most people were born, grew up, married, had children, grew old and died in the same small village. I'm going to copy/paste my comments on that subject from another thread.
Don't forget that modern transportation only became a reality in the last century or so. Before that a person could be born in a little villiage, grow up there, marry, have children, grow old and die all in the same place.
I don't know if you have ever lived in a small town. I did for a few years. I loved and hated it. Everybody knew everybody. There was a very appealing coziness about it, but no privacy at all. It didn't matter what you did. The whole town knew about it the next day. At the very beginning someone pointed out an individual pedaling down the street on a bicycle to me. I was warned to stay away from him. He wasn't quite right in the head and wasn't safe to be around. I proceeded to get this person's whole life history.
I doubt that Jack would have survived in such an environment. Its no surprise that he surfaced in a big anonymous city.
That is not to say that you couldn't have an SK in the countryside. In an area of isolated farms where your nearest neighbor is miles away and few people know each other, yes. But that is not the same as a small town. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Yes RJ, I have considered that possibility, and am in fact looking at a couple of cases now from the LVP that give rich food for thought.
But one factor that must be considered is the large number of drunks and lunatics who were stood in line at the local police stations with their hands up in the air saying 'It's me! I'm that 'orrible Jack the Ripper!'
How many were there? Twenty or so?
So the police had ample opportunity to do that very thing... but instead they appear to have gone for the mini rather than the maxi.
Less bother I suppose.
There are unsolved killings of females available in the LVP, which do climb towards the utter destruction of MJK - they never reach it - but sadly most of those cases involve very young girls and the press has been reluctant to go into graphic description.
Most, if not all, purely domestic murders of females during the LVP - where savage violence has been used - are solved within 24 hours, but some of them are brutal to an extreme. I think of the poor woman who was stabbed sixteen times by her drunken partner, and as she died on a bed with her guts hanging out, the examining doctor poked his head through the door and said 'She will live'.
She didn't, but then neither did her partner.
Good thread this. Lots of issues. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 194
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
AP,
Hmmm I'm totally lost about the thread you mentioned. Did a search, but nothing.
Ah, well. I'm really pressed for time, and will look it up later.
I really have to respectfully disagree (and, yes, I really do respect your work and theories) I don't really see the London police forces in a conspiracy on this one. Actually, if anything, they were perhaps caught up in the general press hysteria and ruckus if they mistook Millers Court for Jack. Maybe..
But, as you know, I don't think so.
Glenn,
Hope you don't loathe moving as much as I do. For me, it's hellish. Never will do it again unless I really have to 
Anyway. Godspeed and all that.
I see your point, but we seem to filter the facts differently, and I end up with another interpretation.
However, you missed my point slightly. What I was trying to say was not about having two mutilating killers, but having two killers capable of that kind of mutilation..at the same time.
Granted, it is possible that MJK was the victim of a domestic murder, and that the killer got the absolutely genious of an idea, to mask it as a Ripper crime. Because, if anyone got that idea, it was simply brilliant.
And would fit well into a Hollywood movie. But in real life? Possible, but still..
But my point was that not all killers would be able to do that. So we have, in the same space and time, at least two killers that feel "comfortable" with severe mutilation, even if the motives were totally different. The odds for that is IMO a bit slimmer than having one SK with that modus.
It's a slight difference, but that was what I meant.
My main problem on this one, however, is that I don't really see the police letting Mary's boyfriends off the hook that easily without a reason.
I actually wrote another response earlier today, but it was lost to the nothingness of cyberspace when my computer froze (Swear I'll buy a Mac next time around!) It was about the way society influenced a potential SK.
My choice of example was the norse world ca 800 - 1100 BC (I mentioned this briefly in another post, but I was elaborating a bit more) In that kind of society there were almost no cities, and most people did not travel far. Personal honor was entirely different, and it was accepted that sometimes a man lost his temper and killed another man! (Although it was not without consequences)
Communications were not as bad as one might think, however, and anyone killed (especially a woman), would set in motion an entire clan to revenge that.
Anyway, most potential serial killers back then would IMO never evolve into serial killers. They would never have been able to be invisible. And they would be much less likely to try to be so because of the perception of personal honor, etc of the times. IMO.
London 1888 is not norse times, I know, but I challenge the idea that people really do not change. Even today things like religion and culture do change the way people behave.
Actually, I agree that basically people are the same, but they do not necessarily behave similarly!
And that is the crux. If you read the ancient norse saga's, you find people surprisingly modern. And yet, they sometimes behave really strange in modern eyes because of the way society back then influenced them. Even in matters as basic as love, for example.
So in a strange way, I agree with you Glenn, but in another, I disagree. If that makes sense.
Ok, whether or not this has any apparent bearing on the Ripper case, I don't know
Caz,
We are definitely on the same wavelenght here!
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 132
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Maybe it was not a case of another killer trying to emulate Jack,perhaps it was Jack himself who was a copycat.That is,he set out with a definate idea in mind,remembered from a situation he had read of or seen previously,and was only able to fullfill this fantasy in the seclusion of Kelly's room,previous attempts having failed. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 195
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 6:22 am: |
|
Harry,
Interesting thought, and almost what I have been thinking out loud on several occasions here on Casebook.
I think Jack eventually was a "copycat" because he responded to the press and general ruckus about his own murders. Obviously he would be aware of the speculations and overstatements.
Likewise, as you say, his first murders might have been influenced by previous killings by other murderers. No man, even a SK is excluded from being influenced by the world around him.
Think about it. Jack feeling his superego boosted by having been made a supervillain by the press. His deeds made even worse than they were. Certainly he might have been spurred on. Perhaps both before and after his spree started.
Certainly after, IMO.
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 777
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
No offense,Helge....but people aren't the same since at least The Industrial Revolution.
Pandora's Box has been opened and it will never be closed again.
Culture and religion being influential? Our culture changes so rapidly,that it helps create misfits such as serial killers. Most of European based societies have to fight the processes of alienation and atomized individuals. Religion? Religion has less group control than it used to, despite still being influential to the individual. Religious denominations often change with the times or culture,tolerating many things they would never have contemplated even 40 years ago as ever being tolerated.
And then there is the factor of Leisure. Leisure, to me, is another negative in the wrong hands of these people.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 196
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 07, 2005 - 8:23 am: |
|
No offence taken, Howard.
That is exactly my point, I just used a period a thousand years ago as an example. Even then people were much the same (which was part of my point), but outside "forces" certainly "modified" their behaviour.
Obviously I am aware of the fact that we need not go that far back to find examples
And Pandora's box have been opened time and time again. Each generation does so.
But what are "the same"? In a thousand years, I'm sure much of our behaviour today will be regarded as pretty strange.
But we are digressing..
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Pete Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
I do recall some cases of mutilation being posted. But I do not recall any of them that were not explainable by a) mutilation in the interests of concealing the murder or b) mutilation in violent overkill - hacking apart with an axe, many frenzied stab wouds, etc.
MJK's body was abused in a semi- methodical way quite atypical for _any_ kind of murder, and the few cases even remotely comparable (Black Dahlia for example) were not, as far as is known, domestics, although they may have been one-offs. The injuries are simply not consistent with any idea of trophy taking, violent rage, concealement, etc. They must have taken some time to inflict, and some restraint rather than frantic hacking and slashing.
Not to get into the definition of what is insanity, but what was done in that room indicates mental processes that can not be explained as the act of a 'rational' human being, even of the strange kind of rationality exibited by your average SK. Glenn has mentined previously the rarer 'disorganised' serial killer, and the more extreme (and rare) examples of those seem to me to be the kind of person involved, somneone like Richrd Chase or Hadden Clark whose actions are only explicable when the delusion they are suffering from is discovered. People reacting to delusions of this kind surely may change their behaviour in whatever way the delusion leads them.
This does not rule out anyone's theory, since one off murders of more-or-less unique kind not fitting a pattern do occur, rather it indicates to me the general difficulty of trying to fit this group of murders (and MJK's in particular) in with any 'pattern'.
Regards
Pete Tabord |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 9:29 am: |
|
There are several indications in the Miller's Court crime scene that clearly suggests that this may not have been a Ripper murder.
On this point......how well do the mutilations inflicted on MJK reflect how the less reputable press of the day described the mutilations of the other victims?
If a killer wanted to try and pass off his MJK job as a JTR killing and only had the lurid descriptions of the other victims that had been in the press, he may have gone "over the top" as his only frame of reference was what he had read in the paper?
Mr P |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 198
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Pete,
Jack certainly exhibited a mix of organized and disorganized behaviour. So, in many ways Millers Court is not so different from the rest. It does give the impression of being more disorganized, however, but that is mainly because all we tend to see is the "mess" there was.
And the blood. But, seriously, try carving up a human body to that extent without spilling blood (or, on second thoughts, don't try it, just imagine it..or on the other hand, never mind..)
But not everything was a mess. CLearly pieces of meat were stacked on the table, etc. It was not just a random carnage. This was IMO a person capable of the exact mixed behaviour of Jack. What would Eddowes' have looked like if he had taken his time?
Whatever delusions Jack had, clearly the short timeframe involved on the street automatically made him hold back. He was vulnerable, and every second was an added danger. And clearly he had survival instinct.
As to the press reports having made a (domestic or random) killer go over the top, Mr poster, here are some clips from the Eddowes murder:
The Times:
It was again the body of a woman, and again had death resulted from a deep wound across the throat. But in this instance, the face had also been so slashed as to render it hard for the remains to be identified, and the abdomen had been ripped up, and a portion of the intestines had been dragged out and left lying about the neck.
..the murderer had been in a hurry, and had carried out his design in a more rough fashion than that with which ANNIE CHAPMAN'S body had been mutilated.
(Certainly he had not read The Times, because there was no hurry in Millers Court)
East London Observer
The poor woman had been completely disembowelled, and part of her intestines had been laid on her neck - just by the wound there.
(Hmm.. disembowelled, but no mention of flaps of flesh being cut off,etc..)
The Star
There is no suggestion of surgical neatness, or of the removal of any organ..
(The heart, the heart, where are Mary's heart?)
Granting that he has some rough knowledge of anatomy, it is probable that his hands only would be smeared by his bloody work, and that after doing the deed he would put on gloves
(Guess the killer involved in Millers Court needed more than to put on a pair of gloves..)
Daily Telegraph
..death seemed to have been caused by the same deep cut across the neck which has been observed in most, if not all, of these dreadful homicides, but in addition to the fatal wound the victim in the second crime had undergone mutilation similar to that wreaked upon the miserable creature ANNIE CHAPMAN. The lower portion of the body had been opened by long incisions, and the intestines displaced, while the legs and the face were also gashed, and the nose completely severed.
(Hmm..why not emphasize the cut on the neck? The lower portion of the body OPENED, but not REMOVED..)
The Evening News
..It was that of a woman with her throat cut, but in her case the inevitable abdominal mutilation had been accomplished..
(Does not sound like Millers Court to me)
From this I glean that, if the killer tried to make this appear like the Ripper, he probably did not read newspapers at all..
;)
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3859
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
You're doing an ultimate mistake here, by thinking that the general public reads and remembers the detailed stuff. They don't. What they focus on, and then exaggerate when they spread the word on the street, are the wild expressions and most ghastly descriptions.
And the papers DID exaggerate. This can be seen on several occasions just be studying their descriptions of Eddowes' facial mutilations, but also on in which words they describe the murders as a whole, using words like 'diabolic' and 'horror'.
Place yourself in the situation of an unexperienced killer who realises he risks capital punishments when he knows it will be common knowledge that he had been the boyfriend of a murdered woman. Some people are actually prepared to go to excess in such situations (knowing about the hysteria from a number of horrible serial killings that the police are anxious to solve), considering they have the stomach for it. And we don't know enough about either Barnett or Flemming in order to say that they hadn't.
Here are some examples on how some papers in some issues chose to present the Mitre Square murder and the mutilations on Eddowes as well as examples of the hysteria they tried to create by referring to the killer like something supernatural and diabolic:
'Men feel that they are face to face with some awful and extraordinary freak of nature. So inexplicable and ghastly are the circumstances surrounding the crimes that people are affected by them in the same way as children are by the recital of a weird and terrible story of the supernatural. It is so impossible to account, on any ordinary hypothesis, for these revolting acts of blood that the mind turns as it were instinctively to some theory of occult force, and the myths of the Dark Ages rise before the imagination. [...]
There was a great disfigurement of the face […]The face was very much mutilated.
(East London Advertiser. Saturday, 6 October 1888.)
The whole shape of the woman was marked out in blood upon the pavement.[...] The woman's face was so mutilated that he could not describe what she was like.
(Illustrated Police News. 6 October, 1888)
The identification of the Berner-street victim as Elizabeth Stride is practically complete, but it is feared that more difficulty will be experienced in establishing the identity of the woman murdered in Mitre-square. The face is badly mutilated, and it wears an unnatural appearance.
(Daily News. 2 October 1888)
But the first thing I noticed was that she was ripped up like a pig in the market. There was the big gash up the stomach, the entrails torn out and flung in a heap about her neck; some of them appeared to be lying in the ugly cut at the throat, and the face - well, there was no face. Anyone who knew the woman alive would never recognise her by her face. I have been in the force a long while, but I never saw such a sight.
(From an interview with’ the police constable who found the body’ in The Star Monday, 1 October, 1888.)
There were certain deviations from the murderer's ordinary plan, but they are not inexplicable, or very significant. He gashed her face in several places [...]
All the viscera were cut out, and the lower part of the abdomen lifted up bodily towards the breast; in fact, a more fearful case of mutilation cannot be imagined.
In addition to these fearful injuries a portion of the right ear was also cut off, and the nose was slashed half-way through. The face was also slashed and cut about in the most brutal fashion...'
(The Evening News. Monday, October 1, 1888)
I could go on and on.
As for your comment, that the idea seem to be more suitable for a movie script, I can only urge you to read up a bit on other cases of domestic nature and you will find that the reality often is worse than fiction. Take a look at the case of Buck Ruxton, for example (which I've referred to several times, but there are others).
The general public had not the information the police had, or our knowledge in hindsight about the case. They probably had a rough estimation of the wounds and had to use their imagination during their personal interpretation of the information they received through the papers and the word on the street (the latter 'source' without doubt spicing up the murders to a large extent).
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 735
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 8:05 pm: |
|
No fair, Glen! 
I wanted to see what this domestic killer did that was worse than JTR.
Buck Ruxton was a Doctor. That means he had dissected a corpse in medical school, and possibly even done a bit of cutting and stitching in his practice (in 1935 Doctors weren't as specialized as they are now).
He wouldn't be as squeamish as an ordinary person. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3868
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 8:17 pm: |
|
True, Diana. But as I said, there are others. I just mentioned Ruxton because his case is the one I remember by name right now without my initial list available, and because it is the case I know of that involved the most extremem mutilations to the face.
Not all people are squeamish anyway, doctors or not. Buck Ruxton just happened to be a doctor but what he did didn't require any medical skills.
It would be like stating that all those killers who, for example, dismember their victims needs to be surgeons. Which we know they often are not.
I liked that funny emoticon, though. Haven't seen that one before.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 199
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Ok, Glenn, I hear you..
Sure, I more than willingly admit that the facial mutilation could have been influenced by the stories.
You got me there..
What I still don't quite get is how an inexperienced killer would go so far if he only wanted it to look like JTR. Half of what was done would have been overkill IMO.
We cannot really discuss IF it was possible. I think it IS possible, don't get me wrong. With human nature ANYTHING is possible.
All I am saying is that on the whole, I still think it UNLIKELY that what you propose is correct. But not impossible.
Still, I fail to see why this could NOT have been Jack. And, given that we allready know he was around, the simplest explanation to me is that actually it was him.
If the mutilations did not DO anything for the killer, if it was only an afterthought of desperation, I really don't see a probability for this overkill to happen.
I'm not going to say that nobody would be that sick, because clearly it is possible.
Just saying that IMO it is improbable. Or at least less likely than the alternative.
Anyway, one main argument that I have read before for the possibility that it could have been a domestic is the facial mutilations. Now the facial mutilation is suddenly due to the influence of newspapers\word on street. Clearly there are many options..
Btw, just to let you know, the fact that you disagree with me is the single greatest challenge to "my" interpretation in my mind. But the facts, as I see them, still fail to persuade me so far.
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3875
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Helge,
That is true indeed. I mentioned earlier that destroying of the face is generally connected with so call interpersonal murders, and that does indeed seems to be the case, showing some kind of personal connection between victim and perpetrator.
But it can of course also be a result of trying to make the victim harder to identify or to copy another killers' method.
It could in both theory and practice actually be a combination of several of those aspects and maybe even all of them. One doesn't have to exclude the others, and often it appears to be a combination. So yes, there are a lot of options and all of them are valid.
In my mind MJK:s murder doesn't fit a Ripper killing because of the murderer's approach (among other things).
As for an inexperienced killer committing extensive mutilations and overkill, this is something we've seen all the time, where horrific mutilations by young and inexperienced offenders (not necessarily domestic murders but in those as well) committing unbelievable acts and overkill on the victim. Rage and sexual frustration can create terrible results and make people without prior records from violent crimes to psychologically fall over the edge.It is not as uncommon as you think it is, but I cinserely wish it were.
I am not trying to convince you of anything (believe me, I can live with that), Helge. All I am asking is that you keep an open mind to the possibility. I can't make you buy something against your will, and I could be totally wrong anyway in the end.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 683
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
What's this touchie-feelie "I could be wrong" stuff that has infected these boards? I feel like I'm watching re-runs of the Phil Donohue show. Bring me back Stewart P. Evans, Ivor Edwards, Martin Fido, John Smythe, Melvin Harris, Anonymous, DM Radka, or AP Wolf on brandy. Hell, I'd even take Stephen Knight or Paul Feldman. If you know you're right, why give an inch!? This field rightfully belongs to the bellicose. RP |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 737
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Now Glenn, I didn't mean you had to be a Dr. I just meant that you had to not be squeamish and most people are.
If you don't believe that just take some kind of college biology class like I did and watch the expressions on the faces of the students as they prepare to dissect some poor dead creature.
Being a doctor is just one way to break down ones inhibitions. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3876
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 2:41 pm: |
|
RJ,
Believe it or not, if I write 'I could be wrong' it is because I DON'T know that I am right!!! It is quite simple. What I believe is one thing, what it really could be is another.
"This field rightfully belongs to the bellicose."
Yeah right, and if you express hard firm opinions, then you get criticised for that. Sometimes you end up on the wrong end of the stick whatever you do.
It would be great if people could make up their minds on these Boards.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3877
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Diana,
"Now Glenn, I didn't mean you had to be a Dr. I just meant that you had to not be squeamish and most people are."
Oh really?
I know several who are not. And judging from the large number of crimes involving mutilations performed by inexperienced people, I'd say there are evidence of the opposite.
And what about hunters or butchers? Have you been inside a slaughterhouse? I have, and I can't believe how people can work in there and manage both the smells and the intestines, not to mention the psychological effects.
But apparently a lot of people can.
And I certainly believe they could to a larger degree in 1888; people were less squeamish in the old days.
I belong to one of the more squeamish persons on the planet, but that doesn't mean others are.
Of course, doing this to another human being is to take it to a new level but crime history is littered with such cases. People in certain situations or displaying psychological traumas can, in pure rage, mental confusion, jealousy etc., do the must horrific - and totally unexpected - stuff. Frankly, I think there is too much naivety displayed here.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 09, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 738
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 3:17 pm: |
|
If you are a hunter or work in a slaughterhouse you are already desensitized, but you can bet that for most people, the first animal they killed or slaughtered probably was hard to do. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 200
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 3:47 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I could be wrong
Actually what you say makes perfect sense, although I still maintain my position. Im a stubborn one, you know, heheh.
But I guess we both know there are multiple options here, and we simply cannot be sure. However, discussing things on this level, sans the WWI trench warfare, can be just as interesting as the shootout in OK corral. Things are not black and white, and if they were, we would probably not be here any of us! Getting stuff looked at from different angles sometimes makes one get an aha experience.
Sometimes, but not always.
But that is how these things work. The very complexity of the human mind and the difficulty in solving certain crimes (especially this old crime involving a SK, difficult even by modern standards!), makes for an abundance of multiple possibilities and speculations.
And now some people will think I have gone completely mushy, but credit where credit is due. What you say about slaughterhouses, Glenn, is absolutely true. I have also been unfortunate (IMO) enought to have seen what goes on. And for me, it was not the blood or gore, but seeing the pigs actually understand what was happening, and shrieking in fear.
Never again, say I. Never again.
And actually, I admit looking at the people working there as a completely different breed from me and you.
But apart from that. There is always the possibility that we deal with one of Marys close acquaintances, that skimmed so low that he avoided the police's radar, that he actually was a butcher or whatnot, and that he had been caught up in the horrid stories and tall tales about the Ripper, that he also felt like spending considerable time doing his "imitation", that he was lucky or clever enough to share Jack's ability for "invisibility", etc.
All is possible.
Or, one could believe Jack simply was going on with his "games", randomly picking up MJK, and the rest is history.
RJ, I've been too bellicose on a couple of occasions here, and live to regret it. One thing is to yield position too easily, another is to accept that occasionally we simply do not know.
But if you want to pick a fight, come on..
Actually, I'm more like
Helge(nen)
(that last one probably only understood by Glenn..ps, Helgonet..in swedish)
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3878
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Helge,
"Helge(nen)
(that last one probably only understood by Glenn..ps, Helgonet..in swedish)"
Oh Oh! I got it now! Hee hee.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
I could be wrong but I think it should be required for every poster to start their post with, "I could be wrong, but . . .". It would be a great exercise in humility and stop a lot fights. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3879
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
I could be wrong, but I believe 'I could be wrong' is probably one of the most used phrases on these Boards, so in a way I can see Mr Palmer's point. I would assume that is implied between the lines anyway; those who believe we can be totally certain of anything in this case has my condolences.
But wait a minute... shouldn't this thread be about statistics?
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4754
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 3:45 am: |
|
It should indeed.
So : there is a 10% probability that I am wrong....
Robert |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 201
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 4:13 am: |
|
Ok, Back on topic.
Quoting from the Serial Killer Crime Index:
* North America has produced some 80 percent of all known 20th-century serial killers, with the vast majority of those active in the United States.
* Europe runs a distant second with about 16 percent of the world's total crop: the European leaders are:
o Great Britain (with 28 percent of the continent's total)
o Germany (with 27 percent)
o France (trailing with 13 percent).
* Third World nations presently spawn 4 percent of the world's known serial killers, but a recent upsurge from South African and Latin America threaten to alter those statistics in the new millennium.
o (The Third World lag, despite huge population blocs, has variously been explained in terms of cultural disparity, poor communication, and news censorship imposed by various totalitarian regimes.)
One thing is clear from any global survey of serial murder: the United States, with 5 percent or less of the world's total population, has produced 76 percent of all known serial killers in the 20th century (close to 85 percent since 1980)
This shows that Diana's initial assessment is in all likelihood correct, and that the revised numbers of serial killers based on contemporary known distribution in the East End 1888 would be:
Initial estimation of serial killers in East End based on US averages ranged from:
.106 to 1.5,
(depending on which numbers one accept for the total of serial killers at large, probably much closer to the first number)
New correction:
The US would produce 80 out of 100 SK's, Europe 16, and Great Britain 4.48.
Since the .106 - 1.5 range represents 80 percent of the total, we get a "world average" of .13 - 1.88, and the Great Britain average is only 4.48 percent of this, no more than
.0058 - .084
!
Obviously we have no way of knowing how the distribution of SK's was in REALITY, especially since we do not know if the statistical distribution back then was the same as the contemporary distribution, and the numbers are only to be taken as an indication of a trend.
But it is a very strong trend, and the trend is that another SK operating side by side with Jack in the East End is remote.
Now the next step would perhaps be to calculate the possibility of having a killer operating at the same time as Jack in the East End. I will not do that, because that possibility is 100%. We know other murders occurred.
The point would rather be to calculate what the chances would be to have another killer (not a SK) copying (by chance or design) Jack's MO and signature close enough to be mistaken for Jack. Since we have no numbers to work with here, that simply cannot be done. All I would venture to say is that the statistical probability on such a limited timescale would make it more likely that there should not be that than that there should be..
The effect of the Jack mythos and copycats will skew such statistics. But hardly in a way that can be calculated with any certainty.
There are limits to the usefulness of math.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 10, 2005)
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2006
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
But it can of course also be a result of trying to make the victim harder to identify or to copy another killers' method.
It could in both theory and practice actually be a combination of several of those aspects and maybe even all of them.
In the case of MJK, her facial mutilation could hardly be a result of knowing the victim and trying to make her harder to identify, unless you believe the woman who was killed in Mary's own room wasn't Mary, and that her killer knew it wasn't Mary.
Why is it so hard to imagine that Jack, when the streets became red hot after the double event, would have been lying low, dreaming of how he could improve upon his performance on Eddowes, bodily and facially?
Why doesn't it fit with the facts, that by November he was more than ready to strike again, fired up by the enforced cooling-off period, and fired up by the newspaper reports that had given him an official identity - Jack the Ripper? If he wanted the definition to fit him like a kid glove, it certainly did after the scene in No.13.
I just don't think the impostor theory is very likely, and I'm not sure I understand why the whole thing doesn't work terribly well with Saucy Jack at the helm - a known throat-cutting and mutilating serial killer of unfortunates, operating in just a few short months in a small, underprivileged area of town, where police and vigilante presence was fast growing to an all-time high.
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3882
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Caz,
You're looking for the most comfortable and appealing explanation -- right or wrong.
Fair enough.
But no, considering certain facts from the crime scene I find it more than doubtful that the MJK murder was made by the Ripper, and if I should be totally frank, I don't think it was at all.
The murderer in Miller's Court displays a MO and signature similar to the Ripper to some extent, but psychologically he appears to have a rather different approach in his intimate contact with the victim and in the nature of the actual attack -- and therein, in my opinion, displays traits very different from the Ripper.
In my view, the Miller's Court murder is the work of an amateur who tries to make it look like something else, and I certainly don't think the 'location indoors' argument is a satisfactory explanation, nor can the so called 'evolution' theory explain all of it. Those are all totally empty speculations, conceived in order to support a comfortable, 'easy' solution. All of that is totally unsupported, but it is regarded as satisfactory interpretations and stated facts so that MJK don't loose its status of the 'Ripper's grand finale'.
In spite of the fact that other copy-cat murders DID happen, in spite of the fact that the papers spewed out more or less distorted information about the murders and made them mythological and in spite of the fact (like in the context of Stride) that there are persons in the victim's immediate circuit that had both motive and maybe also opportunity to commit the murder.
You may be convinced, Caz, that the Ripper did it. Fine by me. I am not, but I am not expecting you to buy it. Accept the fact that I have my own opinion about this and move on, and don't push me into seeing it your way by writing idiotic stuff like 'Why is it so hard to imagine...' It is NOT hard for me to imagine at all. But why is it so hard for you to imagine that there might be other explanations than the ones that are popularily viewed, and why is it so hard for you to accept that some people don't see it as a Ripper murder?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 788
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Caz and Glenn..
I see what Glenn means on the "evolution" argument. Its just as probable had the killer of MJK definitely been the killer of the women on the other three nights and had access to an indoors environment,they may well have been gutted as MJK was. There really isn't that much difference between the murder of Mrs. Chapman and Mrs. Eddowes as far as I can determine from Phillips' post mortem statement of the former and Dr. Brown's assessment of Mrs. Eddowes' murder. Both had extensive mutilation and had their intestines placed over a shoulder and organ[s] removed. Maybe its how we read the reports, written by two different men, more than a real escalation of post mortem violence. Granted,differences exist...but are they that noteworthy to indicate a definite evolution? Just a thought.
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 685
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Mr. Andersson, it might be a good time to review your own thoughts from two years ago, which I happened upon by mistake.
../4921/7840.html"#DEDDCE"> |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Perhaps it's time to ponder a strategy for breaking free of the endless cycle of speculation and counter speculation? Just a thought.
Sorry, R.J., it's never going to happen on this site. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 203
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Howard said
"There really isn't that much difference between the murder of Mrs. Chapman and Mrs. Eddowes"
I agree. Personally I don't really see that huge a difference between them and Kelly either. Just more of it.
Glenn said
"The murderer in Miller's Court displays a MO and signature similar to the Ripper to some extent, but psychologically he appears to have a rather different approach in his intimate contact with the victim and in the nature of the actual attack"
I agree it may appear that way. However, Jack's approach depended more or less on surprise in order to pull it off silently. Once things start to go wrong, it may easily deteriorate out of control. Mary had only to suspect something was amiss to destroy the surprise element. From there on several scenarios might have unfolded.
And the extended interaction between Jack and his victim this time could also easily upset his usual behaviour, so the approach can easily be misinterpreted.
We simply cannot say what happened. Therefore it is very hard to determine if the killer changed his routines or were forced to by circumstances.
So, IMO, the differences simply prove nothing, and unless Jack had left his card at the place, or later had been arrested and confessed, nothing will prove or disprove that he did it today. The copycat killer can always be drawn from the hat in any series of unexplained murders.
But at the same time it is not like even dissimilar murders always can be ascribed to different perpetrators, law enforcement have been wrong on several occasions that we know of.
It boils down to the fact that we do not know, and thus we have to interpret facts the best we can. No wonder we cannot agree.
But neither should we. Not until any real evidence turns up. Which it probably never will.
I will not speak for Caz, but I disagree with Glenn's phrase (and I think she does too!):
"Those are all totally empty speculations, conceived in order to support a comfortable, 'easy' solution. All of that is totally unsupported, but it is regarded as satisfactory interpretations and stated facts so that MJK don't loose its status of the 'Ripper's grand finale'."
The opposite is also speculation. Let's be fair. And unsupported? I agree it is impossible to prove it, but it is no stretch of imagination to see the possibility that Jack did it. After all, it has some of his MO and signature, and we know he was operating at the time.
I am not convinced beyond doubt that Jack did it. But I think he did. And this is not because I would hate to see Jack loose his "grande finale". It is because there is no evidence that he had quit after Eddowes, it is because there are clearly elements of his MO and signature in the kill, it is because I don't see Jack as unable to adjust to new environments and situations, it is because we cannot prove that the killer did anything that Jack could NOT have done.
So, IMO it is a stalemate when it comes to factual evidence. But the cycle will go on...
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Funnily enough I don’t think a serial killer capable of evolving, they seem to get stuck in some kind of peculiar vacuum where the beginning is the end.
Like an electric fan that whips around until someone turns power off. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 204
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
"The narcissist's life is a giant repetition complex. In a doomed attempt to resolve early conflicts with significant others, the narcissist resorts to a restricted repertoire of coping strategies, defense mechanisms, and behaviors. He seeks to recreate his past in each and every new relationship and interaction. Inevitably, the narcissist is invariably confronted with the same outcomes. This recurrence only reinforces the narcissist's rigid reactive patterns and deep-set beliefs. It is a vicious, intractable, cycle."
Or something to that effect..
And yet, even serial killers will need to learn the trade, so to speak. Their inner world may not necessarily evolve that much. But initial desires obviously will not necessarily be instantly gratified. The real world is in their way..
"Yet, serial killers are different. They represent a dual failure - of their own development as full-fledged, productive individuals - and of the culture and society they grow in. In a pathologically narcissistic civilization - social anomies proliferate. Such societies breed malignant objectifiers - people devoid of empathy - also known as "narcissists". "
Oops, america..
Quotes from Sam Vaknin.
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 243
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Hi all,
The U.S. may lead the world in serial killers today but it looks like the U.K. might have had us in 1888. We're always striving to be #1.
There is really about the same difference between Eddowes and Kelly as there is between Nichols and Chapman. So is Nichols a Ripper victim?
Since this thread is about statistics, what are the statistics regarding a domestic copying a serial killer? The only case I can think of is The Boston Strangler and there's considerable doubt in that one, in fact, many think there were two serial killers there.
I could be right or wrong,
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3884
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
RJ,
"You were then arguing the exact opposite position with equal enthusiasm. That' fine, of course. We all change our minds. But it doesn't it make one worry a tad bit when the evidence itself hasn't changed in 117 years?"
That is absolutely correct (Remember RJ? You called me an 'inclusionist back then...). I have totally changed my mind and reconsidered, which I also a long time a go clearly advertised. And the reason for it is due to information I received that made me read things I see in a different way.
For the very same reason I have totally switched opinions regarding Stride, whom I in the beginning wholeheartly supported as a canonical victim, which I don't do today. This I also clearly advertised.
Such things happen. We are all part of a learning process.
AP,
"Funnily enough I don’t think a serial killer capable of evolving, they seem to get stuck in some kind of peculiar vacuum where the beginning is the end."
Well, to be honest, there do seem to be some evidence speaking against that. Many seem to agree on their MO is based on learn behaviour and the more experience they get, the more their methods may evolve, which in itself is a reasonable thought. That is how humans work to some extent.
But what I am reacting against is that this is taken for granted and being relied on as a firm truth in order to explain anomalies.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
I do see and understand what you folk are saying, but still feel the killer goes out with this vacuum wrapped around him where he expects certain things to happen at certain times, and then other things happen, real life circumstance intervenes and his vacuum can’t cope, so he adapts in the best way he can.
He is not teaching life to evolve, life is rather teaching him to evolve to circumstances outside his vacuum.
Of course his vacuum doesn’t exist, he only thinks it does.
When the certain things he expects to happen do not happen then his crimes escalate, in a strict scale according to the degree of his limited experience, the less his experience the more horrific his response to the circumstance outside of his vacuum.
Just as when Colin Pitchfork murdered two girls who backed away from him when he was exposing himself.
They were - in his peculiar vacuum - supposed to walk past him and ignore him, just like hundreds of other girls did, but they did not do that, instead they recognised what he was doing and the vacuum exploded and he killed them.
The escalation was prompted by the victim’s response not by the killer’s learning curve. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2270
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
I think I agree AP.Pitchfork"s behaviour in such circumstances as that you have just described may have been triggered by some kind of "off the wall interaction".The objects of the killer"s sick intention were meant to be just that- objects,slime,-passive recipients of his perverse,
cold blooded fetish.To be more than that all of a sudden may well have brought on the murderous rage.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3886
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
"Howard said
'There really isn't that much difference between the murder of Mrs. Chapman and Mrs. Eddowes'
I agree. Personally I don't really see that huge a difference between them and Kelly either. Just more of it."
Well I agree on that the differences between Chapman and Eddowes are not that dramatic; the only large difference is the taking of the kidney (but then on the other hand, a part of Chapman's bladder was taken as well) and the adding of facial cuts.
I disagree on, though, the same can be used on Eddowes contra Mary Kelly. The leap from Eddowes to Mary Kelly is distinctly more dramatic.
As for challenging the idea of Mary Kelly being the Ripper's 'grande finale', I have on several occasions noted how sensitive this issue really is, and apparently it is very controversial - it seems some people don't want to get their illusions shattered. I agree on that it would of course be more interesting if the Ripper did slay poor Kelly (I actually can accept the fact that the Kelly murder might have been the work of the Ripper), but personally I have no problems with if he didn't; it would only bring another aspect to the context of where the case exists.
"The copycat killer can always be drawn from the hat in any series of unexplained murders."
As it should be (although you should have written 'copycat/domestic').
"...and we know he was operating at the time."
Really, do we? All we know is that he killed Eddowes on September 30 and that there were no killings, for unknown reasons, in October.
"...Just more of it"
No actually, that is not the whole story. The Ripper had a very clear focus on what he wanted to do and which targets to attack and why. This is rather clear from the mutilations.
This we don't see in Kelly. In the Miller's Court murder all we see is a slaughterhouse scene where the mutilations are pretty much inflicted all over the body without any particular design. This is why I spoke about 'amateurish'. Some say this can be explained by that the Ripper focused his work deliberately while working outside in more limited time frames and risky circumstances outside, while he had more time to indulge in Miller's Court.
Fair enough. But I'd say the Ripper did his mutilations for reason and not because he wanted to take someone apart just for the sake of it. The mutilations inflicted on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes are all done with a very focused intent, and as I see it, the 'indoors' argument does not suffice in Kelly's case and it certainly doesn't impress me one bit.
Besides, who's to say that the Millers' Court scene wasn't risky? As I said earlier, if the cry derived from Kelly, then it would be rather a high risk game to play to stay in there for much longer than he did with the other victims, and judging from his other crimes I don't believe he would have liked that sort of attention while perpetrating a murder.
One of the reasons (besides those that have been previously addressed) for me believing that the killer of Kelly knew his victim personally, is because he knew the premises and when she was alone so that he wouldn't be disturbed or risk to get caught in the act. Kelly had other friends living in her room and she also had visitors. It would be quite risky for a killer who didn't know any of these circumstances to do this deed and remain there for a longer period of time, and this to me points at someone who knew her and her habits quite well and not a serial killer or an occasional client.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 205
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 3:55 am: |
|
Glenn,
Ok, I'll give you that we do not know that Jack operated at the time of Mary's death. But we do know he recently operated. At least this is a known factor up against the speculation of yet another killer.
This is like your earlier argument that the series was not necessarily within Jack's zone of operation (I used the word comfort zone then, but let us not go into that again). Clearly all canonicals (at least) IS within the possible "working" area of Jack.
And I say "possible", because speculation that it is not, is pure, untenable speculation.
"As it should be (although you should have written 'copycat/domestic')."
No, because a domestic would not be behind a series. Clearly, for you Millers Court is not part of that series, but for me it is. Either it is a copycat, or a domestic. I see nothing domestic here at all..but I acknowledge the fact that you do.
There were flaps of abdominal flesh cut almost loose in other incidents. Given more time, I see no reason why Jack should not have cut them completely off, and, say, place them on an available table. Etc.
This is what I mean by "more". More time, more mutilations, more possibilities.
The main short circuit in your reasoning here is the proposition that Jack should have known there was a risk because Mary used to have visitors. Clearly, if Jack did not know her, that argument becomes invalid.
You have one given premise for thinking that, but that premise is in no way an established fact.
I see no reason why Jack would think Kelly's room was especially risky in the middle in the night, when she herself brought him there to do "business".
And actually, as it turned out, Millers Court turned out NOT to be risky. Even with a cry about murder that night, no one bothered. If Jack was intimately familiar with the situation there, he might have known that no one would be staying over that night, and that disturbances was not uncommon anyway. So even so, your argument fails.
MAYBE he knew just enough to know it MIGHT be risky. But MAYBE, and more likely, he did not.
If you remember, I think Jack even did Old Shakepeare. Granted, I'm not so sure about that one as Kelly, but that is not the point here.. The point here is that thus Kelly does not necessarily become Jack's "Finale", as I see it.
What I have said, is that the media attention might have spurred Jack on in the case of Kelly. And why should not the "original" killer be influenced by the media, when a copycat can?
(oh, we don't know that..but then we don't really know about the alternatives either?)
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 716
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Although I think there's a possibility that Mary Jane Kelly wasn't murdered by Jack the Ripper, I have a couple of comments on some of the things you wrote.
"But I'd say the Ripper did his mutilations for reason and not because he wanted to take someone apart just for the sake of it. The mutilations inflicted on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes are all done with a very focused intent,..."
I agree that his (initial) interest lay in the abdominal area and that that was his focus in the murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. But who's to say what he would have done if he'd had more time in those cases? The additional mutilations in Eddowes' case weren't just the cuts to her face, he also seems to have done a lot of damage inside her body plus he clearly cut her inner thighs, something he hadn't done before either.
It seems like you're saying (but correct me if I'm wrong) that if it had been the Ripper who killed Kelly you would have expected him to have stopped and gone away after he had finished the attack on the abdomen. I don't know about that. Jack the Ripper most probably hated women and he was most probably guided by fierce anger on the nights he killed. Unlike the other victims, Kelly was (almost) naked, so he had easy access to all of her body and he simply did have more time.
Not that I'm convinced Kelly was a Ripper victim, but with all the hate and anger (and opportunity) I think it's quite possible that the Ripper wouldn't have stopped and that he in fact would have tried to take her apart, diminishing her to nothing. Unfortunately, we don't know which part of Mary Jane Kelly's body her killer attacked first.
"It would be quite risky for a killer who didn't know any of these circumstances to do this deed and remain there for a longer period of time,..."
If he was taken back to her room posing as an unknown client, why would he need to worry about things he didn't know. As far as he was concerned, she might just have been a whore who took him back to her room in the middle of the night with the purpose of having sex with him, just like she probably had been doing with other men before him and might have intended to do after she thought he had left. If he was actually thinking something along those lines, he wouldn't (have to) worry. And maybe he just didn't think that far (in the other cases he didn't need to either), but only acted and did as he pleased as long as he thought he had the opportunity.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3888
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Helge,
"But we do know he recently operated. At least this is a known factor up against the speculation of yet another killer."
Sorry, that shows absolutely nothing. You can't speculate about what a killer would do and not do AFTER his known established activities.
As for copy-cats, then I assume you believe the Ripper killed MacKenzie and maybe even Coles as well? Because if at least MacKenzie was a copy-cat (as I believe she was), then there DID occure murders after the Ripper operated that is not attributed to him. It would be quite natural for copy-cats to occure under such circumstances, where the murders came under such hype.
"I see nothing domestic here at all..but I acknowledge the fact that you do."
Yes I do, because I've seen a number of similar cases.
"There were flaps of abdominal flesh cut almost loose in other incidents. Given more time, I see no reason why Jack should not have cut them completely off, and, say, place them on an available table. Etc.
This is what I mean by "more". More time, more mutilations, more possibilities."
Yes, I know that was what you meant, but what I was trying to say, was that the Ripper's mutilations appears to be very focused on certain parts of the body and done very effectively in order to achieve a certain goal. I disagree on that the other victims had a lot of unnecessary flaps; except from the cuts in Eddowes' face, their wounds were pretty much targeted at the abdominal area, with some addition of occasional stabs. Not at all similar to the filet attempts on almost every part of the body as in Millers Court.
I do not believe for one minute that the changes into a mere slaughterhouse was a result of 'given more time'. And you continue to speak of 'given more time' like it was some kind of established fact and the only explanation available.
"If Jack was intimately familiar with the situation there, he might have known that no one would be staying over that night, and that disturbances was not uncommon anyway. So even so, your argument fails."
No it doesn't. I can't see that anyone besides someone who knew her very closely - way more closely than even the most regular client - could be aware of such things. Kelly was living with at least one person at the time off and on and were visited by other friends.
And how do you know the killer was someone she brought home with her? That is not established either and quite clearly a matter of debate. Why do you assume Jack might have been 'familiar with the situation'?
You are taking too many things for granted here, Helge.
You don't think someone like the Ripper would be scared off from the cry of 'Oh murder' -- well, I certainly do, considering how very important it was for the Ripper to perform his crimes as silently and to kill or smother his victims as fast as possible to limit any kind of struggle from the victim. The approach of the murderer in Miller's Court is clearly different, and did not seem to have the same considerations.
"And actually, as it turned out, Millers Court turned out NOT to be risky. Even with a cry about murder that night, no one bothered."
Well that is a strange reasoning isn't it, and only based on hindsight and knowledge in retrospect. Her killer couldn't know that, could he? The room was small and extremely risky and I think the expression cul-de-sac really is valid here, in case someone came in and caught him in the act. I don't believe someone like the Ripper or someone who knew her only briefly would take the chance of remaining there after the cry of murder and stay there for a longer amount of time to indulge in extreme mutilations (if we just for a moment believe that the cry DID derive from her). This location is risky in quite another way than the Ripper's other murder sites.
But someone who knew her very well on a personal level would know her sleeping habits, the time she usually would get visitors, the time she most certainly would be alone (and if she wasn't when he arrived, then it would be no problem, since then he himself would only 'be on a visit anyway') etc. Maybe he even had spoken to her previously that night or evening and had heard her talk about her plans for the evening. You see, there are millions of explanations.
And I do NOT believe anyone outside her very close personal circuit would know such things. The Ripper was a risk-taker, but not stupid.
"The point here is that thus Kelly does not necessarily become Jack's "Finale", as I see it."
No but it is for others. I was not talking about you, but many people in general.
"And why should not the "original" killer be influenced by the media, when a copycat can?"
Now, that is an interesting point, and I actually think he might have been triggered off from reading or hearing about the early murders that some wants to attribute t him. Quite possible. Somehow, at this later stage when he already had committed a number of murders, I fail to see that his actions should be especially influenced by others than himself.
Sorry, some of your assessments I can understand and I can't say that they are necessarily wrong, but I just don't agree with them from where I sit.
If you don't want to even consider to keep an open mind to this possibility, then it is your call. I am not forcing you to believe in it.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3889
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
"It seems like you're saying (but correct me if I'm wrong) that if it had been the Ripper who killed Kelly you would have expected him to have stopped and gone away after he had finished the attack on the abdomen. I don't know about that."
Well you see, I can't see why the location indoors would provide him with more time and security in order to go to such excess. That just doesn't work for me and people grab and hold on to this explanation too easily.
Inside the room, his actions were not seen by others, but on the other hand he had very little visibility and control and couldn't see if anyone else was coming. And if he might have heard someone approaching - as perhaps in Buck's Row or Mitre Square - then it would be too late. And being inside a room he would have been trapped. Of course he would have been trapped in Hanbury Yard as well, but then he did what he intended to do, but not more.
I can't see why he should stay inside the room, go berserk with extensive mutilations and practically wait for someone to knock on the door. The Ripper was someone who worked fast, and I believe he would have done so indoors as well.
As I see it, the mutilations on Kelly are not the work of the same man; they are more crude and does not at all have the same sense of direction. They are more horrible - yes - but I see an inexperienced amateur at work here. Still, only my personal interpretations.
"Jack the Ripper most probably hated women and he was most probably guided by fierce anger on the nights he killed."
No no, that is psychological speculations. By reasoning on such grounds, we could state practically everything.
"If he was taken back to her room posing as an unknown client, why would he need to worry about things he didn't know."
Yes, but we don't know if her killer WAS someone she brought home with her, Frank. That is the whole point.
I disagree with you; I am more or less convinced of that the Ripper - although he took some risks - was somone who was very careful not being seen and who wanted to do what he did as efficient and less time-consuming as possible. The crime scene in Millers Court displays something different, in my view, and I can't see why that behaviour would change just because it happened in a cul-de-sac indoors. I don't think the Ripper or an occasional client would take this risk.
OK, aren't we - AGAIN - losing the statistics here?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 11, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 207
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Glenn,
Ok, I will not go on forever on this topic, but some points need to be clarified.
"You can't speculate about what a killer would do and not do AFTER his known established activities. "
Yes I can. But that is not the point. You claim "After his known established activities", this makes no sense. You speak as if we KNOW for sure that Jack stopped after Eddowes, this is your opinion, not mine. All this is personal opinion, and you can say why you have yours, but you cannot prove your opinion. You can try to convince people that you are correct, but so can I.
But you make the mistake of taking your opinion as a given fact. Once more.
I have never seen a domestic case quite similar to Millers court, but would still be much obliged to be pointed in the direction of one.
Maybe I speak about "more given time" as if it was an established fact, and make the same mistake you do occasionally. But I was in this instance trying to explain how I perceive things. I know you perceive things differently, but at least can I make my point?
This is the "casebook syndrome" all over again.
"I can't see that anyone besides someone who knew her very closely - way more closely than even the most regular client - could be aware of such things."
So then you agree that if the killer was NOT a very intimate friend\lover then he had no way of knowing about people staying over, etc. Exactly my point!
Either I am not making myself very clear here, or I am missing something.. I though it was pretty clear I was simply sorting out alternatives here. I have said on several occasions that I think Jack was a random customer for Mary. I still think that.
Also, I have earlier said that I do not entirely discount the possibility of either a copycat or a domestic, so how you can say:
"If you don't want to even consider to keep an open mind to this possibility, then it is your call. I am not forcing you to believe in it. "
is beyond me.
I dont see any evidence for your scenario, and until I do, I'll stick to my scenario, not out of spite, not because I see no other alternative, simply because I interpret things in a different way than you do.
And that's my final word on that.
When it comes to statistics, if it was possible to do some meaningful statistics beyond what has allready been done here, I would do it. But as far as I see it, it can't be done.
Sure, we could play around with more numbers, but it would be a perversion of statistics, as I see it. Unless someone comes up with something really clever.
More clever than I am, and more foxy than a fox that foxed a foxy fox..
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
