|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jason Stone
Police Constable
Username: Georgelusk
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 4:26 pm: | 
|
{Jack the Ripper-Martha Tabram “Psychological Profiling” and the Importance of the “First Murder”
I don’t think we really want to know who “Jack” was, along with Paul Begg and others I think we love the enduring mystery-we like it as it is.just as it is.when we feel as if we are getting close to an identification-the shadows close in again, as another suspect intrudes. What we love is the chance to read to watch and learn about this mystery, to do our own little piece of armchair detective work (or if your a serious researcher or just really sad-in the library and records offices), to come up with our own pet candidates, construct a case-but still know that unless we get really lucky, we will not come close to constructing a case which would get anyone charged ...in 1888 or 2003.
But if we stopped trying.... That would be worse...so here’s my considered opinion. We don’t really want to know the identity of the killer but we DO want to know as much about him as possible, and I believe we can through observation, logic and imagination...all of which are in some measure present in the techniques of Psychological and Geographical Profiling.
Quiet at the back! .... Ok... I know many observers of the case believe that these “modern” techniques are not relevant to historic cases such as the Ripper, but I simple do not agree. If we are actually interested in pushing the mystery closer to resolution.then we MUST surely make use of techniques and resources that were not available to the Victorian instigators of over a century ago.
It’s quite clear to me from the complete lack of consensus amongst senior police officials of the time (Anderson & Swanson-insistent upon Aaron Kosminki (aka David Cohen or Nathan Kaminski), Littlechild for Tumblety, Macnaghten for Druitt, that the police of the time did NOT have any real evidence against anyone as Abbeline said in 1903 “Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject now that it was fifteen years ago” all the valuable finds of Martin Fido, Stewart Evans and Melvin Harris and others over the years have only lifted the veil of some of those people whom police officials suspected of being Jack –they have not produced any “real” evidence, certainly as things stand if this was a “live” case we would still be unable to charge anyone-no more so than 116 years ago.
It seems to me that the police of the day were doing essentially what we continue to do today..we look at the crimes..think of the sort of person who we believe could commit them, visualise them and then start looking through the familiar candidates..or just possibly search for our own.
I think Inspector Abbeline knew more about the case than any one person did at the time, and I think his status within the Ripper Myth is well deserved. It is notable then that he uniquely as far as I am aware-baldly stated some fifteen years later that Scotland Yard was “..none the wiser..” about the case. This convinces me that that the police officials of the immediate post-Ripper period were merely “stabbing in the dark” (for want of a better phrase) when they proffered names of suspects in newspapers, memos and memoirs.
It is a disappoint to me to find in a Casebook website interview such a respected author and researcher as Steward Evans dismissing profiling out of hand as a tool for telling us more about the Ripper. Having written two pretty essential reference works about the Ripper “The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook” and “Letters from Hell” his views I know, carry considerable weight within the Ripper Community –many of the photo’s reprinted ad infinitum in Ripper books are not contemporary photo’s but mid 60’s shot’s done by him of those buildings which still existed at that time. But I find his take on the case unpersuasive.
Mr Evans stated reasons for rejecting profiling is unconvincing “...it is all supposition, guesswork, and a balancing of odds” ......Err ...so? Why isn’t that a proper tool to use on an historical mystery certainly in the absence of any other evidence? Isn’t it indeed exactly what most of those students, authors and researchers into this case have always done? I would dare say this was very much what the contemporary police officers started doing as there investigations came to nought As Mr Evans states earlier in the interview in what almost seems like the same breath “common sense and balance of probability are the best yardsticks to use”.... Indeed.
Mr Evans continues... “Profiling should be used as an aid to detecting and identifying a modern killer in a current investigation”. Part of the fascination of the Ripper case is that it “Jack” does strike many as a “Modern Killer” in a historical setting as Martin Fido wrote, “The Ripper preceded the modern phenomenon of the serial killer”.
Stewart Evans continues, “It has no place in solving or attempting to solve a 100-plus year-old unsolved murder case”.
But why not? After all what harm is there? Of course Mr Evans is only expressing his own, extremely well-informed but I think still wrong opinion- “I find it amazing how it has turned into a money-making business all of its own with books, movies, and media appearances.” Well we could say the same thing about the whole of “Ripperology” couldn’t we?
For all this criticism, Stewart Evans states of profilers“...84 percent of detectives found their advice useful and 68.5 percent said they would use psychologists again. The main reason they found it useful was that it gave them new ideas or it confirmed ideas they already had”.
Yes! Yes! That’s right ...Isn’t that the whole point?
To quote Roy Hazzlewood one of the techniques pioneers “Profiles are only produced in unsolved crimes of violence, and they are written in a way designed to help law enforcement officials in their investigation”
Stewart Evans also quotes Detective Chief Inspector Gary Copson of the Metropolitan Police, "With some of the profiling, when you take out the obvious things that have been suggested such as the offender is male, is 18 to 30 and is anti-social, the ratio of correct predictions to incorrect ones is 1.45 to 1. That means you may as well toss a coin."
Please note he said “SOME” profiling and once the “obvious” things are removed-this by definition is going to reduce the hit rate-sharply I suspect.
Remarkably Mr Evans continues “The profiler most often used by the police was found to be the least accurate and the police felt that it would be useful to know how they reached their conclusions and reveal the degree of guesswork involved”. ...Doesn’t this argue that the police have a resistance to the whole idea of profiling by the police concerned rather than it’s failure as a tool? It is hardly surprising to me that you get mixed results if you are deliberately using bad profilers!
John Douglas -another pioneer and one of the technique’s most visible advocates states in his “Cases That Haunt Us” that “. It takes a long time to be a good profiler” and words to the effect “there is no computer program to plug into”.... Many of the same things said about profiling have been said about hand writing analysis and graphology this does not rule out their importance as valid tools of investigation...In both “Mindhunter” and “Cases that....” Douglas describes the resistance of many police officers to the technique who seemed to object to his treading on their turf.
For all his pedigree as an author and seniority as a researcher and experience as a police officer, it is difficult to escape the feeling that Stewart Evans might feel just a little more disposed towards profiling were it not for the fact that his own candidate George Tumblety is ruled out on at least two grounds –age and sexuality (he was in all probability a homosexual). This is further evidenced by his comment in his interview that “there is rather too much of it (i.e. profiling) in our book for my liking”!
In my opinion Tumblety, along with many of the other contemporary and near contemporary Ripper suspects, became a suspect because he fitted the archetype of what the police and public thought the Ripper to be. No coincidence I feel, that most of the contemporary suspects are foreigners, quack doctors, lunatics and suspected homosexuals.
In the case of Tumblety it is quite clear from reading the Littlechild letter that John Littlechild regarded homosexuality as a great and unforgivable perversion which could lead to, and was associated with, any number of other nefarious activities-child molestation, woman hating, etc. In his mind I believe the equation probably ran “Jack the Ripper hates women, homosexuals are men who dislike women, therefore Jack the Ripper is a homosexual”!
In addition Tumblety was a quack doctor, and a belief which had gained wide currency in 1888 and which remains in the public mind to this day is that the Ripper was a medical man of some sort.
Finally he was an American, and the “Dear Boss” letter and it’s imitators along with the story of an American doctor attempting to procure body parts from local hospitals had already placed in the collective imagination the idea that the Ripper was a foreigner, a doctor and quite possibly an American. Tumblety fits the profile in every aspect, yet today we know that in all probability the Ripper was not a doctor of any kind, was not a homosexual and if he was foreign was probably Irish or Eastern European.
You could of course say “who am I” to dispute the opinions of such a distinguished Ripperologist as Stewart Evans, who after all is also a former police officer of many years’ service? Well number one I am entitled to express my opinion as are we all...more importantly, I believe what I believe regarding the specifics of the case because many other senior students of the case hold to it, including those whom Mr Evans sites as exemplars of the literature...Martin Fido, Donald Rumbelow...and Phil Sugden.
Most importantly regarding profiling I simply do not believe that human psychology or criminal psychology has changed significantly over the last 116 years or even the last five thousand come to that, and as such I fail to see anything wrong with using it as a tool on the Ripper case to give us some insights.
People such as John Douglas, Roy Hazzlewood and (geographical profiling advocate David Canter), are the only people I am aware of who have written about or commented on the case with extensive experience of hunting, catching or interviewing the type of killer all available evidence suggests Jack the Ripper was, and as a result of these two factors I think what they have to say about the case should be given considerable weight.
Which brings me onto my theory, influenced strongly by my reading of Mr Douglas’s work and that of his colleagues...
Jack the Ripper was an Irish migrant who lived in the area immediately around George Yard and Flower and Dean Street. He was known to at least a couple of his victims by sight and he worked near the fist “canonical” murder on Bucks Row (modern day Durward Street) possibly in the Royal London Hospital.
As Roy Hazzlewood states in the Peter Ustinov USA Centenary special “This sort of killer generally starts killing in VERY close proximity to their home” (emphasis is mine), John Douglas expands on this saying “if you could take my team and I back in time I would suggest focusing in on the first murder this is usually where the perpetrator feels most comfortable and is generally close to where he either lives or works”.
But what was the first murder? “Mary Ann “Polly” Nicholls” I hear you cry..but no I am one of the growing number who believe not.
I believe in what you could call the “canon + 1” theory, that is that “Jack the Ripper” murdered not only Nicholls, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly but that the murder of Martha Tabram was the first in a series of six (and possibly more -Mackenzie or Coles.and/or others we may not even know about.
Serial murders after all are frequently not considered to be candidates for many of their killings until after their capture when they are interrogated. See Sutcliffe, Bundy and others.
Martha Tabram was I believe the first killing for reasons which are spelled out quite vividly in Phillip Sugden’s “The Complete History of Jack the Ripper” and in Quintin L.Pittman’s dissertation on the “Casebook Jack the Ripper” Website.
In essence Martha Tabram was like the bulk of the canon -a middle-aged streetwalker, she was found in the right area at the same time of day “midnight to six” (Roy Hazzlewood), and although there was no significant mutilation she was stabbed some 39 times, was murdered near a weekend or public holiday and no attempt was made to hide her body.
But perhaps most telling to me are the murder statistics for the East End in the 1880’s and early ‘90’s the Whitechapel/Spitalfields/Aldgate areas in particular. Donald Rumbelow another “Ripperologist” whom I respect greatly and one whose known views on the case (with one exception) correspond closely to mine stated in a Casebook website interview.... “I believe in the canonical five, Nichols the first and Kelly the last. Murder was uncommon in the East End as a whole, one a year in the years before and after 1888. This has to be considered, in particular when discussing the ‘double event.’ Either both were Ripper killings, or there was one very big coincidence!”. (Emphasis is mine).
When I first read this quote, I found the figures Rumblow quotes quite startling, having no independent corroboration for them I cannot be entirely sure-but if they are accurate (and I have no reason to think they are not), then they offer a compelling case to including Martha Tabram in “The Canon”.
In fact even Smith, McKenzie and Coles should be looked at very carefully before being discarded as victims.
I also recall seeing a quote somewhere either on the Casebook Website or perhaps in “The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper” to the effect that there were no murders at all in the Aldgate area in the previous two years leading up to the murders!
What are the odds on having two murderers with a similar Modus Operandi operating within such as small area? Even if there WAS a “copycat killer”, the odds against both committing murders on the same night in the same area with an hour of each other on the night of “The Double Event” as Stewart Evans and others believe seem extremely high.
Of course you had the “torso” murders in London during the same period-including one on Pincin Street, just ten minutes walk south of Liz Stride’s murder site. But the MO was quite different there-dismemberment instead of mutilation, and the victims were in all probability murdered and dismembered somewhere else then transported to the discovery sites-the thought occurs that the placement of the “Pincin Street Torso” may have been a deliberate attempt by the “perp” to deflect suspicion for these crimes to “Jack the Ripper”.
So I believe that Jack the Ripper was responsible for at least six of the Whitechapel Murders, and I believe that Tabram was the first. Some of the earlier non-fatal attacks may well have been by him-if they were not then in all probability there were others committed which were not reported.
In two of his books “Mindhunter” and “The Cases that Haunt us” (in which Jack the Ripper is the first chapter), John Douglas makes reference to a case in New York City in which a young woman was found murdered in circumstances which reminded me very much of the Tabram killing....the woman was found in a stair well with her clothing lifted up and her legs spread apart in a somewhat ritualistic manner –a murder reminiscent of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes as well as Tabram.
The perpetrator as Douglas predicted turned out to be a young local man who still lived with his mother and who had relatives in the apartment block where the body was found.
The similarities are there...the notable difference it should be said was that this woman was a schoolteacher not a prostitute but believing (as I do) the Tabram murder to be the first of the series, the possibility (indeed the probability) that the Ripper knew Tabram by sight (and vice versa) and/or lived within a couple of hundred yards of George Yard buildings, and/or had some sort of connection with the building itself (had relatives or friends living in it) should be borne in mind.
Keen students of the case will know that just North of the George Yard buildings lay Flower & Dean Street a notorious collection of doss houses, the home at times to no less than three Ripper victims (including Tabram)...Flower & Dean Street was actually named at the time by one investigator as a possible end destination of the Ripper fleeing from Mitre Square based on the position of Catherine Eddowes apron at Goulston Street. The Rippers likely escape route takes him along Wentworth Street, which then as now houses a thriving street market-I believe this is a crucial axis for the Ripper.
At the Western end of Wentworth Street lies Middlesex Street (aka “Petticoat Lane”) this street is of immense curiosity since it represents the border of the Metropolitan and City police zones.it would be an excellent place for the Ripper to hide out and if one looks at the double event and accepts Liz Stride as a Ripper victim then it seems he may have fled from Met jurisdiction to Mitre square in City territory in order to satisfy his lust for mutilations which had been curtailed at Berner Street. (Many other students and researchers differ of course).
The “Diary of Jack the Ripper” specified Middlesex Street as the base of James Maybrick-my own recent interest in the case was kick started by the Maybrick diary and by watching the 1988 Centenary special -but over recent years I have come to the conclusion that it is a fake. However, keen eyed students will also know that Professor David Cantor -perhaps we can call him “The Godfather of Geographical Profiling”, conducted an analysis of the Ripper crimes for his recent TV series “Mapping Murder”, in it he expounds his theory of locating an offenders base by plotting the crime locales on a map then finding the centre point. (This is the basic idea at least, and it makes perfect sense to me-the resulting shape is known as the offender’s “Comfort Zone”).
Canter’s theory also divides offenders (and serial murderers) into two groups. Those who live in and are resident in the area he calls “Marauders” those who are not normal residents and either go into a different area from where they live-or operate from some other -more transient base within it, he calls (with no small irony one suspects) “Commuters”.
Marauders account for some 80% of offenders according to Canters analysis-the balance of probability therefore is that the Ripper did live within the rough diamond shape, which is formed by plotting the canonical fives murder site on a map. Martin Fido did this in 1987 for his “Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper). (Three other killings lie inside this Diamond shaped Comfort Zone namely Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and Alice Mackenzie).
Oddly, enough however Canter in his TV show selected Middlesex Street (Petticoat Lane) as the Rippers likely bolt hole-this doubtless gives the Maybrick Diary additional credence in some quarters but I am rather mystified as to how he arrived at this conclusion since by any measure this location lies well to the west of the centre of the Ripper Territory –clearly this is much more to the theory than what I have outlined –one possible complication which comes to my mind is “What if Jack simply moved house during the course of his killings” ? This would surely affect the shape and accuracy of the CZ would it not? Of course there is the possibility that the Ripper was either not a local at all but to use Canter’s terminology -a Commuter –a sailor lets say, or even as some crackpot theories suggest a royal surgeon or some such coming down to the East End on safari.
But the other problem with Geographical profiling and one which is acknowledged by both Douglas and Canter, is that an offender’s Comfort Zone can move or evolve due to other reasons-the killer as in the case of Britain’s railway killers in the mid eighties can get more and more confident of escape and more and more cocky over time with the result that the killings will move from place to place and the Comfort Zone as defined by his crimes will appear to expand and move. Further killings will form Secondary and even Tertiary comfort zones. In the “Cases That Haunt Us” Douglas shows us how the Chapman Killing onwards form a rough triangle. I was startled when I realised the Centre of this triangle-in short the centre of the Ripper’s Primary Comfort Zone was (give or take a few metres) the junction of Commercial Street and Wentworth Street.-and just yards from this spot was George Yard buildings and the Martha Tabram killing.
NOW let us recap Douglas and Hazzlewood “This sort of killer generally starts killing in VERY close proximity to their home” (emphasis is mine), and “I would suggest focusing in on the first murder this is usually where the perpetrator feels most comfortable and is generally close to where he either lives or works”.!!!!
Douglas and Canter also believe that the Ripper as so often with other killers being hunted by the police consciously moved away from his earlier killings to through his pursuers off the scent and also to locate an area where potential victims are less wary and the police and neighbourhood watch presence is less alert. This would explain the Rippers sharp movement to the west after his “first” Canonical killing on Bucks Row to the centre of Spitalfields. It also of course would also explain his movement away from what I believe to be his original base-namely the area immediately around Flower and Dean Street and near the junction of Wentworth Street and Commercial Road.
Lusk Letter
Of the hundreds of letters sent to the police, press and public purporting to be from the Ripper the “Lusk Letter” is the only one of which it can be fairly said that a consensus considers it more likely than not to be genuine.
John Douglas writes that although this killer does not have the “criminal personality type which would compel him to write to the police or the media” regarding his crimes he may well have done so in the aftermath of the “Dear Boss” letter and the “Saucy Jack” postcard to “put the record straight”. He also believes that the fact that this communication was sent not to the police or the press but to a local civic leader is “instructive” since this type of killer operates “only within their own prescribed comfort zone”. In short “although it’s authenticity cannot be proven either way on balance we believe this communication to be genuine”.
I personally am willing to stick my layman’s neck out a little further than Douglas..I am about 70% + positive that the Lusk Letter is genuine and that the accompanying kidney was indeed Catherine Eddowes. The supporting circumstantial evidence is compelling in addition to Douglas’s psychological assessment-the supporting evidence of Bright’s Disease in Katherine Eddowes other kidney, the fact it was sent not to the press or police but someone local who the Ripper might regard as his nemesis –plus the lack of any evident high intellect or reading by the author suggest to me that it is genuine.
Some research upon the Lusk Letter has suggested that the composition indicates someone schooled in the UK. John Douglas on the other hand states that it struck him as the writing of an immigrant trying to “write English as he hears it”. “Writing English as he hears it....” ? This would make as least as much sense to me if the author WAS Irish or at least lived or worked closely with Irish people of which there were many in the area at this time. Douglas himself says he could be wrong about the “immigrant” part and acknowledges he is not a handwriting or linguistics expert.
He writes “we can get people like that to work for us when we need them”...but the “stage Irish” dialect used in the letter does seem to me to be important..In addition to the evidence that suggests a writer born in the British Isles (which of course includes Ireland), there is the evidence of a postmistress who testified that a man with an Irish accent came into her post office and requested the address of George Lusk shortly before it’s delivery.
The “Double Event”
The “Double Event” gives us more clues to the Ripper’s identity and home base than the other murders combined.
There is a reasonably strong case made by many that Liz Stride’s murder –the first of two that night was not a Ripper killing -due to the lack of post mortem mutilation. I am persuaded by John Douglas and Donald Rumbelow (once again over that of Stewart Evans) that the odds of two killers with very similar Modus Operandi killing two women with a such similar profiles within an hour of each other less than a mile apart are high. In addition the fact that the second killing that night (which most definitely WAS a Ripper murder) was the only one of ALL the Whitechapel murders which took place not in Metropolitan Police territory but just outside it in the City of London, is compelling evidence to me that the Ripper was fleeing Metropolitan Police Territory, after being interrupted by Louie Diemschutz and, having done so successfully sought to satisfy his morbid sexual fantasies with someone else.... And found someone just outside Met jurisdiction ...but by necessity not very far from his home.
The Goulston Street Graffiti
The bloody apron the Ripper cut from Catherine Eddowes dress and which he deposited at or near Wentworth Model Dwellings remains to this day the only real and indisputable piece of physical evidence in the case.
The big question of course is “Was the Graffiti written by Jack the Ripper”? The question has rather less to do with any vital clue to Jack’s identity that the Graffiti represented than it has with the Myth of Jack as some sort of rogue Freemason. For even if the Goulston Street Graffiti HAD been photographed as some police officers wanted then it would have had in all probability little use either then or now, as a clue since handwriting written vertically on a hard wall is quite different from a sample writing horizontally on paper. However, such a photo would make for a very interesting historical image for us to puzzle over, and it would have nipped in the bud the whole “Ripper-Royal-Freemason” Conspiracy nonsense.... Though some might consider that a shame. In short it was a grave error by the police in removing the writing before a photo was taken and a minor tragedy for Ripper historians.
My first inclination is to say that the graffiti was the Rippers work-but I have to say this is as much because of the Ripper myth as because I have really strong reasons to believing it was. However even if Jack didn’t right it himself it strikes me that he must have seen the writing and decided to make use of it-in a sense then the message on the wall is important because it was a Ripper message regardless of whether it was his Rippers writing or not. The reasons why Jack might have written it or deposited the apron at that spot (instead of further down the passageway) to draw attention to it.
1) There are plenty of examples of Serial Killers leaving messages at the crime scene (and the doorway was a crime scene since a bonafide clue (the apron) had been found there.
2) The Ripper according to the profile suffered severely from paranoia-as such he might have had a
Particular aversion to Jews if he was as I think an Irishman or a native East Ender. In light of all
the suggestions that the killer was Jewish Jack may have decided to attempt to frame
them...particularly since the building itself was largely occupied by Jews. Even if the message
was quite irrelevant and not written or even noticed by the Ripper then this holds well. In short it
may not have been sheer convenience, which caused the Ripper to deposit the apron at Wentworth
Model Dwellings the Graffiti may have been a ham-fisted attempt to further implicate Jews or it
may simply have been an expression of his paranoid fantasies.
3) The very syntax of the message “The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing” strike
me as very possibly the work of a fractured mind. After all if a bystander was going to write a piece of graffiti insulting Jews I am sure he could and in all probability would be more concise and a lot more colourful.
Of far more relevance to locating the Ripper’s likely bolthole and ultimately his identity is the location of the bloody apron on Goulston Street. As was noted at the time -Flower & Dean Street was a likely end destination for the Ripper after killing Eddowes on Mitre Square –the doorway of Wentworth Model Dwellings would be the first open doorway he would pass assuming he intended to walk east along Wentworth Street and that he crossed Goulston Street itself at the point where he would get to Wentworth Street using the minimal amount of legwork.
Martin Fido who noted this fact in his 1987 book “The Crimes Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper”, introduced us to the Nathan Kaminsky/David Cohen/Aaron Kosminsky “Axis of Evil”-in that same book. When I first heard of this theory in the American Centenary Special I felt immediately that this was the most plausible and well documented candidate for the Jack The Ripper. I still believe this especially after having read Fido’s book and finding from John Douglas’s writings just how closely Kaminsky/Cohen fits the Psychological Profile. He also fits the simplest Geographical Profile to –He lived right in the middle of the Canonical Five’s murder sites. However as always with Ripper suspects –more problems tend to arise over time, and I am more persuaded by Douglas’s profile -evidenced with the comment that, “.. If he DIDN’T do it someone very like him in Whitechapel committed these murders”.
I am inclined to agree with author Donald Rumbelow that we are still looking for some “as yet unidentified local man”.
Several problems strike me with Kaminsky/Cohen theory. One is that he was incarcerated by the times of the McKenzie and Coles murders (see later), another is that if it was Nathan Kaminsky then he had quite a walk back home (at least ten minutes from Goulston Street and fifteen from Mitre Square in my experience) back to his home on Black Lion Square which was well inside Metropolitan police territory. He would have know (assuming Stride was one of his victims) that it would be alive with police activity bear in mind also that the Ripper was carrying Catherine Eddowes left kidney about his person.
Going back to what was said earlier, the comfort zone is not fixed but can and will move, expand and contract depending on how safe the offender feels that day, week or hour and in particular on two things -the opportunity for finding new victims and conversely the risk of capture. After committing a murder in Met territory, being disturbed prior to commencing mutilation, and escaping into the City-my inclination is that the Ripper although driven by sexual frustration to commit another murder would be operating in a very limited Comfort Zone around or near his home-if this is right then the Ripper cannot have lived more than five minutes, (lets say ten maximum) from Mitre Square-Flower & Dean Street and George Yard is just within this distance, also it is only two to three minutes walk inside Met Territory and might be busy enough for him to avoid easy detection.
It is possible (without knowing more about the Rippers profile I cannot say), that the Ripper wasn’t really thinking very clearly or planning that far ahead but was simply driven to escape the police in Met Territory and to find another victim to satisfy his homicidal lust-both of these instincts would have driven him into The City-maybe he just didn’t think about the walk home carrying a human kidney with him, maybe he felt secure enough that he wouldn’t be stopped by the Met or that if he was he could bluff his way out by saying it was an animal’s kidney. Perhaps (and this strikes me as likely based on the facts of the case), the Ripper was simply thrilled by the possibility of detection and capture.
Middlesex Street –home of the Ripper?
But what of David Canter and his pinpointing of Middlesex Street (Petticoat Lane) as the location of the Ripper’s den? Petticoat Lane offers great promise as a candidate for the Ripper’s home it lies at one end of the crucial Wentworth Street (Flower and Dean Street remember is at the other), and more importantly it represents the border between Metropolitan and City Police territory. I can think of no better base for someone to use whilst they were committing these murders. But if his base on the night of the Ripper murders was on Middlesex Street then why would he walk PAST it to Goulston Street and drop the apron there when he is carrying a murdered woman’s kidney with him and he needs to get off the streets ASAP? There are three possibilities here it seems to me
1) The Ripper was so cocky and/or out of his head that he just decided to go for a walk instead of go home.
2) He couldn’t enter his home for some reason-perhaps there were police officers in proximity, and or some other persons who might recognise him.
Or...
3) He deliberately placed the apron there and very possibly wrote the message on the wall deliberately to implicate the Jewish people living in the building.
Of these No.3 seems to me to be the most likely, this possibility takes on extra importance when you bear in mind that a Detective Constable searched Goulston Street on his way back to Mitre Square at around 2:20 am –and saw neither the graffiti nor the apron. The apron and message were discovered at 2:50 am by a Police Constable.the murder was committed at 1:50 am in Mitre Square just 4 minutes walk away.
There are just two possibilities here.... Either the apron was there when the DC passed through Goulston Street or it wasn’t...if it was not where was it during the missing twenty-five minutes (minimum) to fifty-five minutes extra from the time it takes to walk from Mitre Square to Goulston Street and it’s actual discovery? Well the most obvious and likely explanation is.... With the Killer. !
Middlesex Street offers a clean explanation for this-the Ripper returned to his lodgings there, deposited the kidney, got cleaned up and/or changed and perhaps got some chalk then went out to nearby Goulston Street (two minutes walk if that) and dropped it there in an attempt to incriminate the residents.
But on balance, of the three locales pinpointed by various geographical profiling techniques (Black Lion Square, Flower & Dean Street and Middlesex Street (Petticoat Lane). I find Flower & Dean Street and it’s environs (including George Yard) the most promising because of it’s proximity to the Tabram killing and it reasonable central location to almost all off the Whitechapel killings. It is even close enough to allow the Ripper to return to Goulston Street in the scenario I have outlined above.
One problem I have with geographical profiling viz a vis Jack the Ripper, as distinct from other later murders who had access to cars or other motor vehicles, is that if we exclude Polly Nichols murder -and certainly if we exclude Nichols and Liz Stride, then all six of the remaining Whitechapel murders except Frances Coles occurred in an area which you can cross in only 7-8 minutes. The distance between the two “hot spots” Middlesex Street and Flower & Dean Street (both at either end of Wentworth Street) is only 2-3 minutes! .... And I frankly have doubts that the technique is that precise.
Nor really would it need to be. If we were solving the case THEN...and it doesn’t need to be NOW...I am personally convinced that we have enough information based on the Psychological and Geographical profiles to produce a promising list of candidates.
What is needed here is some very detailed primary research-we need to go through the arrest records prior to August 1888 and find someone in the immediate area who had a history of assaults on women-since all indications are that the Jack the Ripper and his kind do not jump head first into committing mutilation murder without some sort of lead up in the form of assaults and rape. Furthermore all evidence suggests that this sort of killer does not stop of his own accord, and the primary reason for either temporary or permanent cessation of serial murder of rape is the imprisonment of the offender. Further more indications are that Jack like other mutilation murderers (e.g. “The Camden Ripper” of 2003) suffered from severe paranoia and other related psychotic disorders and eventually this would have impacted on his ability to function in normal society leading to hospitalisation (which in that time and place probably would have meant commitment to a mental asylum). Not for nothing does David Cohen/Kosminsky/Kaminsky strike me as the best candidate ever presented.
However I am not entirely persuaded that the Ripper’s crimes concluded in November 1888-
Alice McKenszie and Frances Coles
I have long been puzzled by the readiness of authors in particular, but also filmmakers as well as students of the case to dismiss the post –Mary Kelly murders of Alice McKenzie (June ’89) and Frances Coles (Feb ’91) as victims of Jack the Ripper along with those earlier killings of Emma Smith as well as Tabram.
Lets take a brief look at these three other killings-
Emma Smith
Emma Smith was forty-five year old mother or two, and a widow.
By her own account she was returning home the night of April 3 1888 (Easter Monday), when 3-4 youths began following her from Whitechapel Church. On the corner of Brick Lane and Wentworth Street, they beat and raped her, and thrust a blunt object into her vagina, tearing the perineum. She was robbed and left for dead.
Smith walked back to her lodgings at George Street. The deputy and another lodger at George Street, amazed that she could even have made it this far, rushed her to the London Hospital on Whitechapel Road, apparently against Emma's will. Once there, she fought unconsciousness long enough to describe her assailants and the details of her assault. Finally, Emma succumbed to a coma, she died four days later.
Although the victimology (I.e. age, sex and other characteristics) is compelling, nothing else about this killing fits with the others. It would seem that the bulk of the women prostituting themselves in Whitechapel and Spitalfields at this time probably fit this basic profile-most woman young and pretty enough it seems worked in brothels sometimes in the West End as did at least at one time Mary Kelly the Rippers “final” victim.
Smith was attacked by a group of several men one of which she described as “only 19” and was robbed, the assault though vicious was not fatal nor was a knife involved let alone any mutilation attempted, death resulted from infection.
The only really compelling thing about it is the locale it lies just a view hundred yards walk away from the Tabram murder site and the center of the comfort zone
Alice Mackenzie-I defer here to the entry on this murder included on the Casebook Website.
12:15 A.M.: P.C. Joseph Allen (423H) takes a break under a street lamp in Castle Alley, just off Whitechapel High Street, for a bite to eat. According to Allen the alley was completely deserted. After about five minutes, Allen notices another constable entering the alley.
12:20 A.M.: P.C. Walter Andrews (272H) enters Castle Alley just as Allen is leaving. Andrews remains in the alley for about three minutes, and again he sees nothing of a suspicious nature.
12:45 A.M.: It begins to rain in Whitechapel.
12:50 A.M.: Andrews returns to Castle Alley on his regular beat, about twenty-seven minutes having passed since he left the area. This time, however, he discovers the body of a woman lying on the pavement, her head angled toward the curb and her feet toward the wall. Blood flowed from two stabs in the left side of her neck and her skirts had been lifted, revealing blood across her abdomen, which had been mutilated.
.
Injuries
 Cause of death from severance of the left carotid artery.
 Two stabs in the left side of the neck 'carried forward in the same skin wound.'
 Some bruising on chest.
 Five bruises or marks on left side of abdomen.
 Cut was made from left to right, apparently while McKenzie was on the ground.
 A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel.
 Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia.
 Small cut across the mons veneris.

Dr. Phillips believed there was a degree of anatomical knowledge necessary to have committed the atrocities to McKenzie.
The severing of the left carotid artery is consistent with previous Ripper murders, although the canonical five were murdered with much deeper and longer injuries which cut down to the spinal column. McKenzie suffered only two jagged wounds on the left side which were no longer than four inches apiece and had left the air passages untouched.
The bruises on the chestal region suggest the killer probably held her down to the ground with one hand while inflicting the wounds with the other.
The mutilations committed upon McKenzie were mostly superficial in manner, the deepest of which opened neither the abdominal cavity nor the muscular structure. The wounds also suggested that the killer was left-handed (as opposed to the Ripper being right-handed). Phillips suggested the five marks on the left side of her body were an imprint of the killer's right hand, which left only his left hand to facilitate the injuries.
Dr. Bond disagreed, claiming there was no evidence to support the theory that those marks were made through such processes (admittedly, Bond saw the body the day after the post mortem, and it had already begun to decompose).
The weapon involved was agreed upon to have been a 'sharp- pointed weapon,' although it could be smaller than the one used by the Ripper.
Phillips ultimately claimed that McKenzie's death was not attributable to the Ripper:
After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.
I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.
Bond chose the opposite conclusion, telling Anderson he believed it was indeed a Ripper killing:
I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders, viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skilfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murder.
Anderson himself disagreed, writing:
I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac.
Monro, who was on duty during the investigation since Anderson was on leave at the time, disagreed:
I need not say that every effort will be made by the police to discover the murderer, who, I am inclined to believe, is identical with the notorious Jack the Ripper of last year.
In fact, on the day of the murder, Monro deployed 3 sergeants and 39 constables on duty in Whitechapel, increasing the force with 22 extra men.
The inquest was held on July 17th and 19th, and later adjourned to August 14th -- the conclusion was the all too familiar 'murder by a person or persons unknown.'
It is clear that there were mixed opinions amongst all concerned as to whether McKenzie was a victim of Jack the Ripper, but the essential character of the killing-plus the victimology and the locale (Castle Alley is just off “The Ripper Axis” Wentworth Street mentioned earlier)-count strongly in it’s favour for me.
My personal opinion was that this was a Ripper murder-that the reason for the mild mutilation was due (like Liz Stride) to him being interrupted probably by P.C. Andrews approach but possibly by someone else’s.
If this was a Ripper murder one has to wonder what the Ripper had been upto for the previous eight months. Again according to Douglas et al, the biggest single reason for killers such as this stopping temporarily is that they have been caught and/or been detained for something else –the biggest single reason they stop killing of their accord is that they consider they have become dangerously close to being caught identified as the killer. The increasing time between the murder of the canon (and in particular the five week between the Double Event of Liz Stride and Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Kelly is the sheer weight of police presence the search of the area by detectives and uniformed police, plus the vigilance of the locals and his intended victims.
However it is difficult for me to believe that the Ripper, actually stopped his daily prowl for victims for over eight months due to this police activity or was unable to find ANY victims during this period.
So if Alice Mackenzie was one of his victims, we should be looking for someone either imprisoned or detained in an asylum. Douglas’s profile suggests Jack the Ripper was a man with significant mental health issues (I.e. severe paranoia, voices in the head, etc). As such bearing in mind that Douglas states “the Mary Kelly murder certainly shrikes me as a man very near the end of his mental rope”, then I think the probability here is that the Ripper was placed in an asylum during the period of mid November 1888 till around the middle of 1889.
Frances Coles
To quote from the Casebook Website.
February 13th 1891
2:15 AM: P.C. Ernest Thompson 240H was on his beat along Chamber Street, only minutes away from Leman Street Police Station. He had been on the police force less than two months, and this was his first night on the beat alone. Thompson heard the retreating footsteps of a man in the distance, apparently heading toward Mansell Street. Only a few seconds later he turns his vision to the darkest corner of Swallow Gardens and shines his lamp upon the body of Frances Coles. Blood was flowing profusely from her throat, and to Thompson's horror, he saw her open and shut one eye. Since the then unidentified woman was still alive, police procedure dictated that Thompson remain with the body -- his inability to follow the retreating footsteps of the man he believed to have been her killer (and possibly the Ripper) would haunt him for the rest of his days. Thompson was later stabbed to death in 1900 when trying to clear a brawl at a coffee-house by a man named Barnett Abrahams.
.
The circumstances of the death of Frances Coles appear to have been as follows:
 She was first thrown down violently to the ground; revealed by a few wounds on the back of the head.
 Her throat was cut, most likely (according to Dr. Phillips, who performed the autopsy and Dr. F.J. Oxley, the first doctor at the scene) while she was lying on the pavement.
 Phillips believed the killer held her head back by the chin with his left hand, cutting the throat with his right.
 The knife passed the throat three times -- first from left to right, then from right to left, and once more from left to right (Phillips). Oxley believed there were two wounds, since there was only one incision in the skin but two openings in the larynx.
 The killer struck from the right side of the body (Phillips) or from the front (Oxley).
 The body was titled at the moment the wound was inflicted in a manner so that the killer would avoid becoming bloodstained.
 Her clothes were in order, and there were no abdominal mutilations.
 The killer exhibited no anatomical skill (Phillips).
 Part of her left ear had been torn off, but it was thoroughly healed as if as a result of an earring being ripped from her ear some time previously.
 The black crepe hat she had purchased the night before was lying beside her, her old hat pinned beneath her dress.
 10p was found hidden behind a lamppost or gutterpipe, presumably Frances's earnings from her final client.
Thomas Sadler was the immediate suspect of the police, thanks in no small part to the testimony of witnesses such as "Jumbo" Friday and Duncan Campnell. The police quickly rejoiced at the capture of the man they believed to be the murderer, and they were quick to wonder whether or not Sadler was indeed Jack the Ripper. Sadler was charged with the murder of Frances Coles on February 16.
Luckily for Sadler, the Seamen's Union paid for his proper legal representation, and perhaps even luckier, the inquest into Coles's death was headed by the very thorough Coroner Wynne E. Baxter.
It was soon found that the couple "Jumbo" Friday had seen near Swallow Gardens was in fact two friends of his named Kate McCarthy and Thomas Fowles.
Although the knife which killed Frances Coles was believed to have been blunt (like the one Sadler sold Campbell), the witness testimony of Sergeant Edwards and Sarah Fleming, who had seen Sadler hopelessly intoxicated at 2:00 and 3:00 AM respectively, made it unlikely that Sadler was capable of committing the murder. As Dr. Oxley testified, "If a man were incapably drunk and the knife blunt I don't think he could have produced the wound... If a man were swaying about I don't think he could control the muscles of his hand and arm sufficiently to cause the wound."
The jury returned a verdict of "Wilful Murder against some person or persons unknown" on February 27, and four days later the Thames Magistrate's Court dropped all charges against Sadler. As he left the court, crowds of people cheered his release.
Many people at Scotland Yard, and even Sir Melville Macnaghten continued to press the belief that Sadler was guilty of the murder of Frances Coles, and the sides are split among contemporary researchers whether or not Sadler was the killer.
Was Frances Coles a Ripper victim? Her throat was cut, but unlike the canonical Ripper slayings, it was with a blunt knife. There seemed to have been no evidence of strangulation. There were no mutilations on the abdomen, and the clothes were not disarranged. Even more damning is the time frame of the murder -- almost two and a half years after the murder of Mary Kelly. Would the Ripper have stopped for such a long period of time and then resume his slayings with Frances Coles?
Still, the murder remained unsolved. She did die from a slit throat. She was an “unfortunate”. She was said to have been attacked from the right side (Phillips). And robbery was not a motive, as her earnings were found close by behind a lamppost. The similarities with the “canon” are clear.”
Personally I am inclined to discount the Coles murder as a Ripper victim-for the reasons stated above..In addition if we use the murder statistics quoted earlier for the time and period it is probable that this was an unrelated murder....though once again it is possible that the Ripper was interrupted by the approach of P.C. Thompson, and like Liz Stride this explains the lack of mutilation.
Stride and Coles-a different killer?
A New Theory
If we exclude Coles as a Ripper victim and are unsure of Stride then there is considerable room for the belief that the Stride Coles and even the Pincin Street torso murders were committed by the same man but not by Jack. Upon my first visit to the area south of Commercial Road to look at the Stride, Coles and Pincin Street torso sites, I was struck by the relative proximity of these sites-having looked at the map I was expecting to take longer than the 10-12 minutes it took to walk from Berner Street to Swallow Gardens (and Pincin Street is directly en route).
Summary and suggestions for other students
My belief is that Jack the Ripper was an immigrant-possibly a Polish Jew, but more probably an Irishman or immigrant Irish extraction who lived somewhere along the Wentworth Street axis-most likely in Flower & Dean Street or George Yard. He was aged 28-36, unmarried and lived alone and worked as either a mortuary attendant (very likely in or around the Royal London Hospital) or possibly a butcher or slaughter man (or which there were many in that time).
The Ripper was very probably convicted of other lesser crimes prior and possibly during his killing spree such as rape or robbery-there is every possibility the assaults on Annie Millwood
and Ada Wilson in February and March 1888 were precursor Ripper crimes.
The most likely cause of the Ripper’s cessation of violence from November 1888 or July 1889 and thereafter was his incarceration in a Lunatic Asylum-if so then he would have been released around June of 1889 and recarcerated shortly thereafter..But in any case we are looking for a man who either died or was imprisoned or committed during the period November 1888 to July 1889.
So we know likely residence, occupation, likely type of pre offences and likely post offence life history.
Any persons who wish to co-operate with the author on possible research are welcome to e-mail him on jstone@lineone.net
@ Copyright Jason Stone 2004 |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Brevity, Jason, you must learn brevity.
I fell asleep half-way through even though I was enjoying the ride.
You know, Stewart is really quite right concerning his thoughts about profilers, and I endorse his thoughts absolutely. |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Jason Stone
Hi Jason
I would like to make just a few comments to your post re Jack:
1st - I would like to know who Jack was, after all he is the most infamous serial killer of all time. Not the first but the most famous. Once his identity is known then we move on to the next unsolved mystery.
2nd - Re profiling. yes I do agree that profiling is helpful in some ways, however much of the information given by profilers is common sense. I would say many of the comments re Jack. eg:probable age, single, worked in menial job, hated women especially prostitutes,foreigner (maybe) was cruel to animals at a young age, mother was dominant, father cruel etc, etc.
Profiling is not an exact science, especially when applied to a murder suspect over 100 years previous.
At least today profilers have DNA that can be compared and analized. This was not a scientific process available in 1888.
I must agree with Stewart Evans with respect to profiling in the Jack the Ripper case.
I have no doubt that there are more than just Stewart who share this opinion with respect to a case this old.Much of the evidence was distroyed during this time in 1888, eg: writing Goulston Street, Blood on the sidewalk or ground where these crimes occured was washed away and so on.Not to mention special files of McNaughton destroyed, which may or may not have had pertinent information!
There was no Cootus (spelled wrong probably) system to compare fingerprints,there was no fingerlifting process available. So how can modern day profiling solve this case?
There are many terrific authors, theorists and historians who have written great books on the suspect,not for the reason that you say, just for the books and what they would gain from same. These people are sincere in their work, respect their fellow author,historian, theorist and very honestly want to find Jack.
I respect profilers of today, Douglas,Ressler etc,however I would take the word or opinion of today's police etc before I would take the word of a profiler. I would respect the word of officers involved directly and on a long term basis with the Jack the Ripper crimes before I would accept the word of a profiler, whose guess is as good as mine.
Please do not underestimate the research,diligence and hard work of so many of our very talented, hard working authors, theorists, historians and laymen( laypersons) as myself and many others, to dismiss years and years of hard work done without the help of profilers.
PS: you must be going to write a book, your post seems to be a long chapter, no offense meant.
regards
Julie
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 863
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 6:44 pm: |
|
Jason...
This may appear to be nit-picking,but..
As much as I enjoyed the 1988 program, The Secret Identity of JTR, from which you mentioned the duo of Douglas and Hazlewood, I have a question for you.
How much credence should we give that program's final analysis [ that Kosminski fit the bill ]when from the other 4 suspects:
None were disheveled...none lived on a full time basis in Whitechapel..none had a background of mental problems [ known at the time of the broadcast]...only Druitt and Eddy were close in age...none were uneducated men or were deprived of the opportunities Kosminski was.
Now..place Cutbush,Kelly,Bury,and any other similar suspect into the 5 man lineup and then let Hazlewood and Douglas work that out. Replacing a barrister,a surgeon,a writer,and a Prince with one of these types would have made the job a wee bit harder,don't you think?
Jason...with all due respect to Douglas and Hazlewood as policemen, this profiling concept has only an 8 percent success rate.
We might have to call you "Shortstuff". Thats one heck of a long post for a first time post.
Welcome aboard.... |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 284
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Why should we waste our time with profilers on a 117 year old case? They can't get the ones right for 2005. Their assumptions are based on a few hundred cases; much much too small a sample.
Goodies,
Stan |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 231
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 9:13 pm: |
|
Can I say that , personally , I would really like to know who Jack the Ripper was and I hope that the case is solved one day ! I would also like to know who killed the Black Dahlia and what happened to the Princes in the Tower ! |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 704
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 9:16 pm: |
|
Howard & Stan,
Good points and quite true. Indeed, all the modern technologies and techniques don't have a great record in quickly capturing serial killers. Tools like DNA make nailing them pretty secure once they're found -- but the finding part of the equation is still not impressive.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 232
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 9:51 pm: |
|
I remember seeing some episodes of Professor Cantor's ' Mapping Murder ' series but I can't remember one on the Ripper though ; I know he mentions him in his book but he was mostly talking about Maybrick so I shut off when I read that bit.
I don't agree with the definition of the Ripper as a Marauder killer , rather I think he was a Commuter. Its no co-incidence I feel that the killings took place near a border , ie the border between the City and the East End : I can remember Cantor talking on his show about a series of killings that took place just over the German border when the killer lived in France and I feel the Ripper killings were similar.
If the Ripper had been a Marauder , I feel his murder sites would have moved further and further away from his comfort zone around ( say ) Middlesex Street as he got bolder ( which didn't really happen ): furthermore Marauder killers tend not to cross borders , their crime zones tend to be circumscribed by them ( eg a major road can function in this way ) whereas Jack crossed the City/East End border easily to Mitre Square to carry out the Eddowes murder.
My own opinion is that the Ripper was ' slumming it ' , that he came from a well-to-do background and that he felt both thrilled and disgusted by being in the East End. He may well have worked with accomplices to procure the older women for him , but I think he dealt with Mary Kelly in person for whatever reason we do not know.
An interesting idea is to speculate that the Ripper first came into the East End to see the Elephant Man , and then he noticed the whores near the Whitechapel hospital : when he returned , I feel he picked up Polly Nichols near the hospital where he had been before. Next famous landmark was Spitalfields church/market and thats where he found Annie Chapman. Third victim Liz Stride was found because the Ripper returned to Whitechapel hospital and went to explore a different area , south of the Whitechapel Road : but the Stride murder was bungled and the Ripper headed into his comfort zone of the City immediately , to a place where he knew he could find a prostitute easily to slake his murderous lust. Catharine Eddowes was his next victim. And Mary Kelly - I feel sure the Ripper knew her personally , hence the destruction of her face and the cutting off of her breasts.
Jason , it sounds like you might favour Joseph Barnett as a suspect , whereas at the moment I personally am thinking more along the lines of Druitt or JK Stephen as the Ripper ( maybe even both together as in John Wildings theory ? ) |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 759
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Jason, it was a good, thought provoking post.
What do you make of BTK who went from 1991 to 2005 without killing and without being incarcerated, etc? (Of course we only have BTK's word for it that he didn't kill after '91, bearing in mind that the death penalty was restored in Kansas after 94 or 95).
He also tends to disprove the asocial loner paradigm. |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:11 am: |
|
Jason,
Profiling, while imperfect does have its merits. We all know that so many contemporary serial killers followed a progression to get to their final M.O. Typically, one does not become a savage killer without a background of escalating violence.
That being said, I admit that there probably are exceptions, but not many. Now, what good does that do us after 100-odd years? Without coming to a concensus on who the victims were, it probably does us very little good, although the savagery of the Kelly killing would probably say a lot to an expert in the field.
It has been pointed out that criminologists don't have a very good track record in figuring out who a serial killer is. I believe that is because it is only a very recent thing (here in the states) to keep track of behavior issues in kids. It is mandatory for all teachers to create individual education plans for problematic students, and that includes students who have social, as well as academic issues. Do some kids get lost in the shuffle? Too many, but it's a very good thing, and
one can be made aware of potential problems in a hurry.
Through this tracking process, while it has flaws that I don't want to take the time to go into now, I think general patterns of behavior as a child progresses through the various stages of life including adulthood, will become very detectable.
To this, it is my opinion (inexpert as it is) that
the true identity of the Ripper won't be discovered until we can find a suspect that shows a progression of violence beginning in very early childhood. The violence may be acts committed against the future murderer, violence committed by him/her, or a combination of both.
All that being said, injury to the brain is a lesser possibility in my estimation, but would have to be considered atypical.
By the way, thanks for all the enjoyment you all bring me. Even the arguing and derogation that all too often occurs is a jolly good read and reminds me of the many altercations that I've endured on the rugby pitch. I do hope the altercations you have end with both sides having a pint afterwards.
Cheers,
Mike |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
I think profiling can be a useful tool but that it should be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes a very large grain. Also bear in mind that we are trying to profile serial killers not make projections as to which individuals are most likely to become head of a major corporation.
I recall that I once heard a speech given by an FBI agent. He made reference to the Behavioral Sciences division within that agency or as he referred to them "the B.S. Division."
c.d. |
Ms C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 7:24 am: |
|
Hello Jason,
Well I know I am more than a bit prone to waffle-mania myself, but I thought that while your 'article-post' was long, that was because it covered a lot of ground as you set out your stall with a pretty comprehensive review of some of the major points and strands of thoughts on the case. I thought your individual points were actually very cogently and concisely argued - and your style is very readable and not in the least turgid, which makes the overall length irrelevant IMO.
Several points and conclusions I don't agree with, but (luckily maybe from the point of view of bandwidth and sending everyone to sleep;-) ) I don't have time to go through them. A lot of your observations and inferences - such as on Tabram and why on balance we are looking at 5+1 (and maybe additional later victims) - sum up my own instincts better than I could.
I very much like the fact you never forget all theories are provisional, you are never dogmatic, and you always qualify your assertions to make it clear you realise when you are being subjective.
And I think you are right about the search for the identity of the Ripper - of course as individuals we want to know it (desperately even), and that is the main focus of the hunt. But if the Ripperology train ever reaches that station (beyond all reasonable dispute), then the brief satisfaction of jolly bands and bunting aside, the journey is over, and the fun and stimulation is largely in the ride and anticipation. If the case is ever definitively 'solved' it will in large part lose its fascination and it's enduring grip on the public imagination. No-one looks at last week's crossword.
I would love to know who he was - about a month before I die ;-)
Cate |
n
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Hi Jason,
I'd just really like to resonate Julie's 1st point. I don't believe than ANYONE who has read about 'Jack', would want to know who 'he' was. Thats absurd! Thats like buying a lottery ticket and claiming that you 'Never wanted to win the £8m anyway....it's better the 'thrill' of not winning!
Nicole. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
