|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Petra Zaagman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 8:33 am: |       |
I t might sound like I'm writing a post while drunk, but I really wonder who Jack hated.
The most easy answer is: 'prostitutes'.
But WHAT made him do so?
I've been thinking about this, and I feel confused. Most people think he had a problem with his mother, or a(n) (ex)lover.
But, I'd like to set my point.
Maybe he DIDN'T hate his mother at all!
Love and hate are closely bound..
it might have been that Jack didn't hate his mother. Maybe his father had to do with prostitutes. If so, his mother must have been sad about it. It's in my eyes a good possibility that Jack took his mothers misery to heart.
Maybe one of you will say that, if it was this way, he most likely killed his father. No way..
it's very natural to love your parents, so he shifted it on the prostitutes.
I'd llove to hear how you feel about this..
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 320
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 4:23 pm: | |
Hi Petra,
I Believe our killer . objected to the moral standards of prostitutes, like a majority of people have always done, and I believe I can talk for most men throughout the ages, if the woman you cared for was able to have sex with any man for financial gain, then one would feel betrayed , and sexually undermined, and most men would feel the need to alter that way of behaviour, one would hope by verbal means if not by any means possible.
Richard. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 3:38 pm: | |
That's a very good point Petra. The mother being a prostitute and the father having sex with prostitutes are both very good reasons, not that I condone his behavour at all by the way.
Both these reasons could likely cause a son to kill prostitutes, although I think the hating father but loving his mother is actually better.
His mother's sadness could have easily caused a psychological effect on this man, if indeed Jack was a man, but that's another story. I have often thought that JTR may have had a psychological problem as opposed to being a paranoid scizophrenic or other such disorders. He just had an intense hatred or whores or women but if the hatred is of women and not whores then who did he hate then and why? Another important thing to ponder I think.
Regards,
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 515
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 8:57 pm: | |
I think he was scared of women, and therefore also hated them. The only way to take care of the threat they represented was to kill them. And the prostitutes he would see as the most "dangerous" ones. Why he might have felt this way could very well be a result of childhood experiences - I think hatred for his mother best applies here - and maybe even worsened by an increasing mental desease. I think it is very much open to speculation here. In most cases it seems to be a matter of dominant mother and abscent father figure.
But then of course, as Sarah points out, we can't be sure that prostitutes were the ultimate target for his hatred, but we would probably have an even larger amount of victims to deal with if he just were after women in general. But I believe he had a general fear of women nevertheless.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 10:06 pm: | |
I think that assuming that he attacked prostitutes because he hated his mother, father, women in general, unfortunates, etc. -- or that he feared women -- is entirely missing the point.
Most serial killers aren't killing out of hate, they are killing out of lust for murder. They have a desire and they want it filled. Prostitutes are easy targets. Drunk and/or unhealthy prostitutes are even easier. That's likely all it is.
Now, with victim profiling you can look at all the various aspects of the targets and see if anything else crops up. Some killers prefer specific physical attributes that you might compare to some other person in their past, but that could be considered hate or trying to fill an unfulfilled lust for that person. Other things might turn up too.
With JtR's victims, I'm not seeing much of a tie between them. Prostitutes, or assumed prostitutes in some cases, sure, but that's not a surprise. There is some similarities in some of the names, but that could be pure coincidence. They generally liked to drink, but, again, not surprising. They have the same basic location (ignoring the potential for Carrie Brown and other foreign murders being Jack's work) but that's also probably not something specifically targeted as much as a questoin of opportunity.
If, say, Jack hated Jews, perhaps he'd make a concerted effort to target them. That doesn't appear to be the case. If he hated his father and hate were the motivator, I'd expect him to off men, and in less intimate ways.
If he feared women, I'd expect that he wouldn't be likely to be able to talk them into going with him, and that he'd make blitz attacks, like the one on Ada Wilson (assuming her description of the attack can be trusted). It's conceivable that MJK was a blitz attack (a break in instead of invited in), and Stride too (but then she may not even be a Ripper victim), but the others don't appear to be. Blitzes are usually noisy affairs, which is definitely not the case in this string of murders.
It's better to look at the case logically, and as a comparison to known serial killers, instead of invent up motives that just don't make sense. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 777
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 9:54 am: | |
G'day,
Criminal psychologists have found after interviewing convicted serial killers that the childhood years of most have been full of physical abuse, emotional abuse or negative parenting. They grew up without authority and lacked discipline, which developed into aggesive day dreams that continued to develope into their adulthoods.
If Jack the Ripper had a hatred of his father, I feel that he would have killed derelict men of a fatherly age. There were many women who placed themselves at risk as prostitutes, so there must have been many men who used them and went to secluded places too.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 517
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Dan.
I can partly agree with you. Some killers just seem to have a lust for murder, but I believe it still has to come from somewhere - either from an inherited illness, a brain damage, a problematic upbringing, or a mixture of these factors. You are of course right that prostitutes are easy targets, since they themselves lead him to secluded places (not the other way around) and they are in a vulnerable position. They are also harder to identify as victims, since they in many cases use false aliases and don't live under socially orderly conditions.
However, I believe you are completely wrong regarding the blitz attacks. I am a bit unsure in Mary Kelly's case, but I think all the other murders show clear signs of blitz attacks, since there were no signs of struggle whatsoever, and I don't see why blitz attacks should be noisy affairs, I am actually of the opposite opinion. Just the fact that no noises were heard and that they must have been performed quite fast tells me that we're not dealing with a killer here who is "talking them into going with him" (he wouldn't have to anyway), but someone who has a hatred against them due to fear (these often go together) and who feels insecure in their company.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 13
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 1:26 pm: | |
The woman in question, if indeed there was one, needn't have been his mother. As Ressler, et al, demonstrated in Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives, a large percentage of interviewed subjects had been the victims of some form of sexual abuse. In "Jack's" case, this could have occurred at the hands of anyone in a position of authority over him. As a defense mechanism, he learns to identify with his aggressor, and becomes the victimizer himself in order to boost the sense of power and control damaged by the earlier abuse. |
Rodney Gillis
Police Constable
Username: Srod
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 5:32 pm: | |
I have always believed that Mary Kelly was the one the Ripper hated. I think this because the murders stopped (probably) after her death. Her death was also the most violent. The other victims, in my opinion,were means to an end for whatever reason. All of this is speculation but if Kelly was the one hated, Barret and Hutchinson come to mind as likely suspects.
|
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 12:06 pm: | |
Hello All, I think JtR was most probably a paranoid schizophrenic since untreated these are the sort of murders that have been committed by people who are seriously ill in this way.In the stages before complete breakdown the most common symptom is hearing voices. If the person happens to believe he is under instuction from shall we say a higher authority[!] then the most appalling acts of violence have been recorded.These days though as long as those suffering from the illness take their medication they are apparently OK.Such people in history were often very idealistic and their voices told them to perform heroic acts such as Joan of Arc did so it wasnt always bad stuffthat happened that is if Joan did indeed have that condition ofcourse. In the case of JtR I wonder if hes voices were telling him to clean up the streets or something like that.Cheers for now Natalie .Severn |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 7:59 pm: | |
What the Ripper was after is right in the case evidence. Nobody above is even warm. Hint: The man had the spirit of the lark.
Saddam
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 533
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 10:58 pm: | |
Been chewing on mushrooms again, Saddam?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 113
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 10:46 am: | |
Spirit of the Lark??? Saddam, are you telling us that our Jack was actually a member of the Provisional IRA??? |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 11:48 am: | |
Glenn,
We may have different definitions of a blitz attack, which I guess shouldn't be surprising since the term has been used loosely be others in the field too.
By blitz I mean a sudden attack from an uncontrolled position. Meaning, Jack is waiting in the backyard, man Chapman is with leaves, Jack jumps out of cellar door and offs her. These are often noisy in that there's the time between the jump attack and the silencing of the victim.
Most of the ripper killings seem to have been much more controlled than that. Reaching over and strangling someone you've been talking to the past ten minutes isn't the kind of blitz attack I mean. It's quiet because he's in control, and he's already successfully in their zone of power. Someone who is a disorganized killer, paranoid schizophrenic, afraid of women and so forth doesn't get in the comfort zone in the first place most of the time, because he can't function that way.
I think Jack got close enough to kill them quickly and quietly because he had control. You seem to be saying just the opposite. I don't think your version makes sense, but then you obviously disagree. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 548
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 7:50 am: | |
Hi Dan,
Yes we do indeed disagree, but then it's an interesting discussion nevertheless (probably maybe because of just that).
Yes, it seems we have different definitions as well regarding "blitz" attacks. I use FBI:s definition, that an attack is made fast, to surprise and quickly silence the victims.
Now, I'm not saying FBI has all the answers (they do not always hit the jack-pot, but they nevertheless are the ones with best experience regarding serial killers) but if you believe that a blitz attack is NOT a sign of a disorganized offender, then you totally go against their own conclusions. Douglas - as well as Hazelwood - mean that a disorganized killer doesn't want to interact with the victims or get to know them; he doesen't want them to scream or resist, since he's unsure of his own capabilities. Yes, he wants to control the situation, but not in the same aspect as an organized offender; if he's afraid of women - and especially those of the prostitute class - he wants to have as little to do with them as possible and he also wants to suppress the fact that they are human beings.
A psychopath loves to get to know his victims and abuse them as long as the circumstances allow, and he also likes to see them suffer. Now, I know that the circumstances to committ a crime were different in 1888 than it is today, but an organized charcter type or a sociopath/psychopath would have other opitions to fulfill his intentions than picking them up on the street, where he could not have his time with them.
The disorganized killer works just the opposite, he just wants it to be over with as fast and smooth as possible. This is what I feel can be seen in the Ripper murders. Things you interpret as planning, I see as merely instinct of self-preservation and necessary means to complete the "mission". It doesen't take an organized killer or sociopath at all. If it is one word here that unfortunately has been abused in connection of the Ripper murders, it is "planning"!
"Someone who is a disorganized killer, paranoid schizophrenic, afraid of women and so forth doesn't get in the comfort zone in the first place most of the time, because he can't function that way."
Well, Dan, you really have to explain that to me, because I actually don't get it. It is natural for a paranoid scizofrenic or another disorganized character type to stay within HIS OWN comfort zone. Beyond doubt. I really don't see what you mean.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 8:01 am: | |
Glenn said:
"A psychopath loves to get to know his victims and abuse them as long as the circumstances allow"
And circumstances in Whitechapel did not allow it pretty much at all, not without everyone coming running to see what was up.
"Now, I know that the circumstances to commit a crime were different in 1888 than it is today, but an organized character type or a sociopath / psychopath would have other opitions to fulfill his intentions than picking them up on the street"
Such as...? You can't just assume he could have, if you argue that he had other possible locations where he could have tortured at a leisurely place, please do tell.
Now, if Jack were rich he could probably work out some way to torture people on a private estate or something, but if were like most people, or even poorer than most people, he just doesn't have all these options that these FBI profilers expect.
"The disorganized killer works just the opposite, he just wants it to be over with as fast and smooth as possible. "
And this is also what organized killers do when there isn't a good opportunity to torture the victims and delay the death.
And if Jack were organized, and did at some point get such a place (perhaps by going somewhere else completely, or coming into money) he'd also be more likely to have time to properly dispose of the bodies... and we'd be less likely to hear of them or link them to the Ripper if we did.
I mean, just think of the number of people who dismiss the torso killings as Jack's handiwork. I'm not entirely sure, and lean toward it not being, but the ease with which people assume it has to be someone else seems pretty odd.
"It is natural for a paranoid scizofrenic or another disorganized character type to stay within HIS OWN comfort zone. Beyond doubt."
And that comfort zone typically does not include convincing street-smart women that you are harmless. I don't think Jack had to be a natural charmer or anything, and I don't think he even necessarily had to verbally convince them much, but schizophrenics act different, have strange body language, etc. The worse they are, the more obvious they are, especailly to people who interact with others as part of their livelihood. You envision (and have posted so) a ripper who was so screwed up he couldn't live with a wife. That sounds more like a jump attack type person than an interact with the potential victim until she leads herself to her own doom person.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 558
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 8:27 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
All good points of yours, I think, and quite valid as well. I wish I could give you a complete answer to them, though, but that is unfortunately not the case. Everything regarding my opinion on the matter is merely speculations and personal interpretations. But anyway...
I notice from your earlier posts, that you make quite a big thing out of whether the environment would be suitable for the actions of an "ordinary" organized killer, and I can see where you're coming from. I think it's fair to question this point as well. But we can't really be sure of this conditions and this is as speculative as any other suggestion; he could have taken them to places that were less risky, instead of choosing places that were full of people close by. It is true that East End were highly populated and people lived near one another, but I think there would have been sites that were less dangerous. Even if street women with their own lodgings or rooms were rare, I believe that is what an organized killer would do. In the Ripper's case - if we include Mary Jane Kelly among the canonical victims - I get the impression that he didn't do this until it was absolutely necessary; even if he was a lunatic, I don't think he was stupid enough not to realize the increasing amount of PC:s walking about during this time. As far as the other victims are concerned I don't see any more careful planning in how he chose them; they all seem randomly picked.
"And this is also what organized killers do when there isn't a good opportunity to torture the victims and delay the death. [wants to kill them as fast and smooth as possible]"
I don't think so, Dan. I don't think he would get enough satisfaction from it.
The circumstances may change over the years for the possibilities of murder, but the needs and character of a certain killer personality doesen't.
Now, when I talk about comfort zone, I strictly refer to the geographical outline, with his own residence as a common factor.
But you actually have a very good point regarding "convincing street-smart women"; I know from my own studies that such women were neither innocent or naive, and some could even be quite harsh - and they had to be in order to survive. But I am not so sure a mentally ill individual couldn't interact enough to be taken for a customer an ordinary customer. These women had really no choice of which clients to pick, and I happen to know people who work with schizofrenic people and I have met a few. It is a total misconception that these could be too sick on all occasions to interact these way; they are sick all the time more or less (especially when they don't get any medication), but mostly there are certain situations that "trigger" their worst outbursts. So we're talking about degrees here. I don't think you have to be that "screwed up" to not to be able to get married; I think it's just a matter of withdrawal and isolation. Disorganized killers are mostly loners but they are quite capable of having temporary connections - living in a long-time relationship takes a bit more work and social competence, though, so that has really nothing to do with it.
Anyway, you could have a point here neverteless, I am man enough to admit that; if there really IS something that would point to a mixed character, a disorganized with one or two organized features, I actually think it could be this detail.
But more importantly, when I say that a disorganized killer can be seen in the Ripper murders, I state this mainly from looking at the murders in question and how the mutialtions are done. And that certainly doesn't indicate an organized character to me.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 159
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:34 pm: | |
I think we need to be a bit careful here though. An "organised killer" is not necessarily a sadist; meaning one who enjoys inflicting pain on his victims. Ted Bundy, for example, was highly organised but nothing about his crimes indicates "sadism". As brutal as Bundy's murders were, and as organised as he was, he also appears to have killed his victims very quickly.
Admittedly, blunt force trauma (which appears to be how he killed his victims) isn't going to be "painless", but Bundy wasn't motivated by watching his victims suffer. Rather, he appeared to have a need to "own" the victim's body. His motivations were more necrophiliac, not sadism.
A sadist needs to torture a living victim. To hear screams and to have them plead. Jack the Ripper, like Ted Bundy, did not require this. As messy and as horrendous as the mutilations were, they do not indicate "sadism" because they are always post-mortem. A sadist would find this totally unsatisfying because the victim can not longer respond to the injury being committed. The necessary "feedback" is missing.
The important indicators of "organisation/disorganisation" come from the steps taken by the offender to avoid getting caught. One aspect of this issue includes things like "crime scene selection". The reason "organised killers" today will tend to try and get the victim to some "safe location" is because they have decided that location is safe (even if the attack then becomes a blitz style attack, as it seems Bundy always used; once he got them to his location of choice, they were dispatched quickly. This is very tentative stuff with Bundy's earliest attacks at very little evidence remained to really know what happened and his attacks in Florida were at a point when he was breaking down).
Anyway, what I'm getting at in a round about manner is that with the Ripper the crimes are in hugely risky locations.
1) Nichols: in the open street
2) Chapman: fenced in backyard with the sun up
3) Stride : alley beside building with people who may come out at any time (note, usual caveate about Stride's inclusion here)
4) Eddowes: dark square but shortly after being spotted by potential witnesses; indications people awake and in building facing the square (nightman sweaping up; police got him for help upon discovery)
5) Kelly : the only safe location of the bunch
And, if one counts
Tabram: in a stairwell of a building with the danger that anyone could come up or down the stairs, or out of a door at anytime.
Apart from Kelly, none of the locations are "safe locations" for the commission of the kind of crime Jack has in mind. Now, what could be safer? Of the outdoor scenes, Eddowes is probably the safest. It was a very dark location, off the main travel path of pedestrians, with at least a few exits available. If this is the best Jack could do, however, then there's a problem. With all the back-alleys and side-streets, the police themselves pointed out that they found it difficult to block off areas. People found ways in and out that they didn't know about. If Jack knows these areas (allowing him an idea of police patrol times) then he would know of the areas "not patrolled" by the police. He would have used this knowledge to get his victim anywhere that would afford him less risk than committing a mutilation murder in the open street; and not one next to a busy social club, and not after being spotted two minutes prior to entering Mitre Square, etc.
By continuing to murder Eddowes immediately after being spotted with her, he's taking a big risk. Especially if he's the same individual seen attacking Stride by Schwartz earlier. He's now been spotted twice that night (interestingly, the descriptions of Stride's attacker and the man seen with Eddowes are not different enough to be sure they are not the same; unfortunately they are also vauge enough we cannot be sure they are the same person either. Sigh!)
Anyway, if we're dealing with someone whose thinking is not impaired by delusions and thought disorders (meaning some form of psychosis), it's hard to imagin there would not be at least some apparent attempt to select more remote, less public, locations.
Regardless, we shouldn't think that extensive "post-mortem" damage indicates sadism. Sadistic killers require for their gratification a living victim to suffer, not just a body upon which to cause damage.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 564
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 7:32 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
Absolutely. An extremely good post, Jeff. And you are quite correct; an organized killer doesn't necessarily have to be a sadist (which is just one of many subgroups). I missed that point, really. Bundy is an excellent example of that.
I naturally agree with you regarding the risk assasments. (Once again you manage to put things in a way that I am totally incapable of.) I would also think that Eddowes could be one of the more "low-risk" ones, as far as outdoor scenes are concerned: a dark, totally unlit corner and surrounded by quite many empty buildings - the dangerous thing about that site is, in my view, the fact that there would only be some seven or eight minutes between the police beats. And then there also is the possibility that someone could turn up from Church Passage or the other exits. But of the outdoor sites I think it could be one of the safest nevertheless - the extensive mutilation could be a result form this, although this could result from other factors as well.
I believe there would have been other options, if a killer would set out for prostitutes and where concerned about his own safety - outdoors as well as indoors.
According to Turvey, the method of attack also shows us a great deal about the degree of force necessary to overcome the victim, as well as the perpetrator's own ablities. He says: "The method of attack is vital to understand what an offender is capable of and what he is comfortable with in a given environment, with a given victim."
Risk assessment is divided into two categories: a) the risk of a particular person becoming a victim (if the person is drunk or a prostitute etc.) and b) the offender risk (choice of location, the MO, the risk of being spotted, etc.).
If a perpetrator chooses easy targets like prostitutes, that would indicate - also in the FBI profile - a killer with low self-esteem, while at the same time his choice of high-risk locations tells us that he isn't organized enough to calculate his own risks in connection with the operation. That leads my thoughts to a quite confused guy, who acts more on instinct and automatically chooses women who at their own free will approaches him or leads him to suitable and relatively dark and secluded places (which mostly makes them even more vulnerable). That doesen't mean he have to be a complete raving lunatic that slits the throat of every individual he sees or that he can't interact in relatively healthy manner for a shorter time. (I have here disregarded for a minute the factor regarding a deliberate choice of victims as a result from childhood experiences, which of course also is a possibility). And the MO, the fact that he kills them as fast as possible, so that he don't have to interact with them more than necessary, could also - in my opinion - indicate low self-esteem and a fear of what the victim represent.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 3:09 am: | |
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, as I think the locations are all fairly safe, relatively speaking. I also think the assumptions that Jack was seen with the victims prior to the attacks aren't necessarily supported by the facts, based upon the weaknesses of the witness reports -- there isn't a sinlge one that I think necessarily had to have really been Jack or even the right woman.
Your points about sadism are well taken and by themselves would leave the possibility for an organized killer wide open. I realize you don't support that theory, so it's nice to see you giving ammo to the other side. I respect fairness and honesty in debate. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 9:24 am: | |
First things first, Saddam,
Please don't talk as if you somehow know everything there is to know about this case. Until you provide evidence expect people to ignore your strange and unhelpful comments.
Dan,
Paranoid schizophrenics don't always kill, I hope you are aware of this fact. Also, even if JTR was one of these then often it has come from a psychological source. The idea that he has a subconscious (excuse the spelling) hatred for whores or women or whatever could have triggered this disorder or whatever disorder he has. There is no point saying he has nothing wrong with him because even if his motive was just a lust for murder then there is still something wrong. Where did he get this lust from? etc.
Regards,
Sarah |
Rodney Gillis
Police Constable
Username: Srod
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 10:22 pm: | |
Saddam,
I have a tough time swallowing your theory concerning Jack and alcohol. He very may well have plied himself with drink before committing the murders but that doesn't mean that he drank afterward. Unless he was like George Thorogood and always drank alone, I believe that by drinking heavily, he would have left his guard down and blurted something out in public that would bring unwanted attention to himself.
I also wonder if we can dismiss Hutchinson from having anything to do with the murders as you apparently believe. Here is a man who by his own admission, keeps watch over Kelly's home in the middle of the night for over half an hour. If he exchanged looks with Kelly's companion as he testified and that companion was the Ripper, I would think Hutchinson would have become very worried about his own safety. Hutchinson's actions in of themselves does not make him a criminal but to be out that time of night watching someone's home seems a little creepy to me.
Rod |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 160
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 2:25 am: | |
Rod, add to it that Mr Hutchinson was in a different town from where he lived (Romford), on a rainy night at 02:00 AM... I believe he made the majority if not all of it up in an effort to be close enough to the description that appeared in the papers the previous days (right next to the offer of a reward)
Shannon |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 2:14 pm: | |
"...Until you provide evidence expect people to ignore your strange and unhelpful comments."
>>Here is the central issue coming up again, ad infinitum. As I've said before, my position is: "Evidence, schmevidence." To me, all these Ripperologists running round the world demanding evidence are barking up the wrong tree. There already is sufficient evidence to solve the case. It's a hundred years too late to get any more evidence. Ripperology as I see it is like a wealthy shrew who can't be happy--she's got all the money she'll ever need, but she just doesn't know what to do with it. If you knew what I knew, which is what you should yourself already know, you wouldn't consider me strange.
Saddam
|
Matti Kurumaa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 11:52 am: | |
Hellou
Am i too late for the 'hate' problem ?
I would say that Jack was a kind of professional (which here sounds a wrong word) i mean he played for money and gloory. He was known and feared. Nobody had the guts to belch him.
He was notorious, but he enjoyed it. Before he became professional he had lot of just problems.
He could have been seeking for his unborned baby -
he mayby had had some drunken facing with prostitutes - and later on he wanted to dig it out from her.
Or mayby he was no longer capable to have it with
women - or ever did. I know of a case where the
killing lust has replaced the non-extinted sexuality.
Most of all i belive he had following characteristics:
-he was he
-he was a grown-up; i mean he had lot of experience of the enviroment he played in
-he had some special knowledge of gutting women;
i mean he had done it a lot times or he was someway other had the skill
-he was bringing horror to all over the world - mayby not so much to Whitechapel folks - whores
though; "...he wouldent kill ME..." - and everybody went on with their businessies...
-he had big satisfaction of these killings - or
he did not; if he put himself in the lucky rising star
-then later he had to thick that his 'payer'(boss)
could and had the power to deceive him and he feld unconfortable - he was thinking of starting
'his own' - he realises he is in a trap - if he wouldent make it to other countries - and it was impossible his chair was in Ten Bells -outher world would be too much
-he was not an ruggymuffin - he namely was too fancy and 'known' that e.g. a constable would just
honour him
-the lust for the kill was much more greater than
the fear of getting caught - there was no fear in
him; he just HAD to satisfy himself
-he mayby had a helper, a trusted friend with some
sort of same appetite - mayby his friend had intercourse with the deceased and Jack did his job
during or after that...
-he was well prepared for it, everything in him self was ready - only the unfortunate came as it came
-something stopped Jack - mayby he grew older - mayby he wanted to stop this himself
-he could have (and i say could) of higher social class - how otherwise is explained the hollow that
is in it's case
I have to stop now - see you later.
Best regard
MK
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
