|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 26
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 2:40 am: |       |
It's a myth that prostitutes are so street-wise they see a "bad trick" coming a mile away. None of the prostitutes killed by Arthur Shawcross or the Green River Killer thought they had anything to fear from him. Many of them were tough, hardened by years of hard drinking and drugs, and often carried weapons of their own. Problem is, they just didn't see these guys as threatening. They let their guards down. Furthermore, a rumbling stomach can be a heck of a motivator, just like many of today's street pros will go with just about anyone to earn enough to feed their drug habits. Several of the Ripper's victims were known to have been inebriated, and none of them could have been said to have been in great physical shape--poor Annie Chapman was so sick she probably only had a few months to live as it was. And let's face it: No matter how tough a woman thinks she is, in general, men are just stronger, particularly in terms of upper-body strength. I don't think this is something many guys even realize. In my youth I liked to arm-wrestle (yes, I was a bit of tomboy) but as soon as I hit high school I knew that there was no way I could take on one of the boys. I've even arm-wrestled my husband and we were both surprised at how easy it was for him to beat me. And he's a skinny guy not used to any physical labor! We also have to keep in mind that "Jack" had the benefit of surprise on his side. It only takes a few seconds to throttle someone senseless, particularly an intoxicated woman.
I don't see any of the locations as being particularly "safe," even Miller's Court. 29 Hanbury Street and Dutfield's Yard didn't have many avenues of escape. They could have easily proven traps. One could argue that he "learned" from his mistakes and chose locations such as Mitre Square and Miller's Court for his later murders because of this very fact, but would an organized killer have chosen to attack Kate Eddowes only minutes after his close call with Liz Stride (again, assuming she was a Ripper victim)? Yes, Ted Bundy attacked another woman after the Chi Omega murders, but as someone has already mentioned, this was in the stage of his career when he was beginning to decompensate. The Bundy who had killed so many women in Seattle probably could have smooth-talked the Florida cops, instead of foolishly trying to grab a cop's gun and getting himself caught in the process.
I still see the Ripper as a disorganized killer. There were plenty of empty buildings around where he could have committed the crimes or hid the bodies in order to delay discovery. A more organized killer would scout these locations out in advance. Remember, too, that prostitutes are easy prey, perhaps the easiest. If Jack were more organized I would expect him to be able to "chat up" a better class of woman and get her to go somewhere with him--somewhere he knew and could quickly escape, if need be. He would have probably also been able to convince Louis Diemschutz (assuming Stride was a victim, which I do) that perhaps the woman was just his drunken wife or girlfriend and nothing was amiss. Jeffrey Dahmer coolly convinced two cops that the naked kid who had run away from his apartment was just his "boyfriend" and the two had had an argument. Ed Kemper drove right through a guard station with his unconscious victim, calmly informing the guard that his girlfriend was just asleep. After his last murder Zodiac was actually spotted walking down the street by two patrol officers and when they slowed down to speak with him he didn't run away screaming, or try to hide, or freak out in any way--he just told them he hadn't seen the guy they were looking for, and went about his way. He makes it clear that he hid out for hours in a park, waiting for the police traffic to die down. And this was after he had committed perhaps his most high-risk murder--that of a San Francisco cab driver, in full view of witnesses, knowing he would have to escape on foot! It took cops a lot less time to get to the location then than it would have in 1888. Yes, it's possible that Jack did the very same thing, but the nature of his mutilations make it clear that this was not someone who was functioning on a terribly high level. They're just too extensive, too bizarre, and too ritualistic to be the work of an organized killer. When this is coupled with the relative ease of procuring a victim and the swift, sudden manner in which they were attacked, it just doesn't appear that we're dealing with someone in full possession of his faculties.
As I've said before I see the Ripper as exhibiting a "mixed" presentation, at least in the beginning, but the escalating mutilations just do not lend credence to the notion of an organized killer. Jeff said in another thread that it would be best to think of "organized" and "disorganized" as being two ends in a continuum, and if we view the Ripper murders in this light, the conflicting aspects of his behavior may make a little more sense. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 6:16 am: | |
Hi Shannon
The thing about the idea that Hutchinson was just a chancer who was out for the reward, is that if he wanted to home in on a particular description of a suspect, wouldn't he have "chosen" to have seen the blotchy-faced man leaving the Court very furtively some time during the night? Until Hutchinson came forward, the blotchy-faced man was the last man she was reported to have been with (at least during the night).
Robert |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 2:40 am: | |
Sarah,
Of course I realize that not all paranoid schizophrenics kill.
Assuming that mental illness comes from a psychological source isn't necessarily true. A lot of research is pointing to biology as the root cause. I'm not stating that that's the only cause, but you certain can;t assume that ir takes some psychological hatred to become schizophrenic or sociopathic, and in fact schizophrenia especially is very highly linked to genetics.
And I didn't say the Jack didn't have anything wrong with him. I'm saying that you can't assume he was lashing out at prostitutes out of some hatred for them specifically, because there are a lot more potential reasons, many of which that more closely match what we now know about serial killers. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 573
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 9:54 am: | |
Hi Erin,
Another good post.
I think that depends on what you mean with street-smart. Many of them certainly were street-smart, regarding their often distinguished methods to fool the police and their uses of multiple false aliases. And as you yourself say: "Many of them were tough, hardened by years of hard drinking and drugs...", which is absolutely correct, of course. I would also say that some of the prostitutes even could be quite shrude - and they sure had to be in order to survive.
But when it comes to the choice of customer, your point is important, that they - as I myself have indicated several times - really didn't have much of a choice and I think they sometimes had to put their fears or suspicions away in order to earn the money they deperately needed. And I think, with a Ripper on the loose, they knew themselves that they were in a hopeless situation.
I naturally agree with you on that the locations are to be considered risky in general. There were indeed a lot of empty residents around Mitre Square, for example, and it's also true that an organized killer would have scouted these possibilities some hours or days before. Once again, no evident signs of planning, I think.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 167
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 1:07 pm: | |
Robert, when has any reliable witness other then a store surveillance video been able to give such a remarkable description of someone that they don’t know in a town they don’t live who is with a prostitute going about her business in the middle of a rainy night under a 1888 street and pub light????
He chose the description in the papers from Annie's inquest...
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
I don't believe that Hutchinson saw the man he described in such detail - which is why I have him on my suspects list. I do tend to think that he saw some man, though.
My point was, if you're going to say that Hutchinson just invented the description, and even his own presence there, in the hope of striking lucky with the reward, then it would seem to make more sense for Hutchinson to have claimed to have seen the blotchy-faced man who had been mentioned at the inquest that very day.
Of course, given that the description was invented, the question is, why?
Robert |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 34
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 3:13 pm: | |
I think Hutchinson was just a little too eager to please. He doesn't strike me as a particularly clever guy, capable of inventing such a detailed description.
The reward would have been a pretty good motivator as well. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 3:34 pm: | |
Hi Erin
I think I remember Hutchinson actually saying something about wanting to collect the reward. But lots of reward-hunters must have been claiming to have seen men, and furnishing likely-sounding descriptions, throughout the murders. Abberline himself questioned Hutchinson and believed his story - or at least said he did. I think he did see someone, because he places himself by his own admission at the same spot and at the same time that Lewis saw a man standing on the night of the murder.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 168
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 3:56 pm: | |
Erin, exactly; the reward was over 300 GBP after the "Double Event." Do I believe he was there, yes in some capacity. The reason for identifying the person that was described at the Chapman inquest is that person is believed to be a "foreigner" and if it turned out to be mr. blotchy-face, he wins, and if it turns out to be a member of the Jewish community, again, he wins. To me, I smell a Romford rat, a big one...
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 577
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 7:50 pm: | |
Everytime a murder displayed in the media is committed, the police always has to deal with a large group of individuals who wants to indulge themselves in the investigation for several reasons:
a) a reward
b) because they are innocent but have been in the area and knows they have been spotted, and therefore in desperation gets in contact with the police, delivers an explanation, maybe partly fictional, and "helps out" with the investigation so that no suspicion should fall on them
c) they seeks the attention and the thrill, and either confesses (although innocent) or just, for kicks, wants to pull the investigators off their path.
Hutchinson could very well be such an individual, most possibly for the reasons a) or b), or a combination of the two. I find it very likely that his description could be, at least partly, based on some character he'd seen (not necessarily on connection with Mary Kelly); his description might, as indicated earlier, sound a bit too detailed to be completely invented, unless he had thought it through and rehearsed it.
Aren't we off the subject thread here, by the way...?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 4:48 am: | |
Hi all
Just to say that when I say "invented" I mean that Hutchinson probably didn't see a man corresponding with the description. I'm not saying that the description itself would have come out of Hutchinson's head, as if he'd single-handedly created the description.
But you're right, Glenn, Hutchinson discussions belong on Hutchinson threads.
Robert |
Petra Zaagman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 3:44 am: | |
Hi all!
About Mr. Hutchinson, I've been thinking.
I also don't believe he saw the man that clear, he might have not seen a man at all!
Then why would he describe someone he didn't see (clear) to the police?
Did they offer a reward for anyone who could give inquiries about the killer? |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 9:29 am: | |
Dan,
First of all, I don't think I meant that last post to be directed at you, but since you replied to it anyway and got what I said mixed up in your head or something I'll reply.
I said:- 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.
Could you tell me where I have said that a szcizophrenic had to have a psychological problem? I may have said that a psychological problem could cause a disorder like this but I didn't say that this disorder was always caused by a psychological problem.
Just wanted to clear that up. |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 5:33 pm: | |
In Melvyn Faircloughs,"The Ripper and the Royals pages 245 and 246 there is an interesting interview recorded with George Hutchinsons son. There is also aphotograph of G.H. If these are bona fide then I cant see Hutchinson in any particularly sinister role.Natalie. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 11:04 pm: | |
"...the nature of his mutilations make it clear that this was not someone who was functioning on a terribly high level. They're just too extensive, too bizarre, and too ritualistic to be the work of an organized killer. When this is coupled with the relative ease of procuring a victim and the swift, sudden manner in which they were attacked, it just doesn't appear that we're dealing with someone in full possession of his faculties."
>>There is nothing bizarre or ritualistic about the murders. The fact that the murders were carried out deftly and soundlessly each time shows a high degree of competence in the execution. You have to ask yourself why someone would want to do these things. This question is just too hard or too heretical for most people to pose.
>>I see nothing to indicate an escalation of murders, escalation of mutilations, or escalation of anything. I see changes in the M.O., but no escalations.
"...no evident signs of planning, I think."
>>Come on. He knew the police beats cold. He carried out plans in relation to the complexities of the respective ambient environments. He made arrangements for a room in Miller's Court. He always escaped.
Saddam |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 3:17 am: | |
A good reason why Hutchinson couldn,t include the blotchy faced man,is that it is probable that this person existed,and could conceivably come forward with an alibi that couldn't be faulted.In this case the police would pay a little more attention to Hutchinson,who would have little to fall back on.He couldn't take that chance.
The killer was over the edge before he entered Kelly's room,that killing did not send him over.There was nothing in his actions that night that suggested lack of organisation whatever his mental condition.
One common denominator with the victims,excluding Kelly,was that each either wanted lodgings,or were wary of going home the night they were killed.
The killer could simply have promised to show and pay for that lodging,without actually passing money to them.
Annie Chapman could have been told a room was vacant in hanbury street,and they could wait in the backyard untill the proprieter put in an appearance.It was lodgings the victims required not sex.Why prostitution is the only reason put forward as a way of gaining a roof over the head ,is beyond me.
Forget profiling,forget organised or disorganised.There was no central registry to match against anyway. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 5:59 pm: | |
Sarah,
Sorry, I do believe I had mixed up your post with Petra's. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 639
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 5:02 pm: | |
Saddam, what can I say?
I totally disagree with you on all points. I think it's just a matter of opinion, but I for my part interpret the crime scenes and the murders in a completely opposite way, and I also totally agree with Erin.
"He knew the police beats cold. He carried out plans in relation to the complexities of the respective ambient environments. He made arrangements for a room in Miller's Court. He always escaped."
Well, he knew the area and probably lived there as well, so I wouldn't give him the Nobel price for managing to escape.
Of course the murders are bizarre and ritualistic. If not, you see something different than I do. And I do see signs of escalation, although I believe some of that could be explained with conditions on the murder sites.
"The fact that the murders were carried out deftly and soundlessly each time shows a high degree of competence in the execution."
I'd say the opposite. I think it indicates that he is unsure of himself and wants to interact with his victims as little as possible. It doesn't take an Einstein to learn, that if you silence your victims quickly, they won't resist or draw attention. And it definitely doesen't make him an organized killer - but rather the opposite. Especially if the man in question is used to handle a knife, which is quite logical to assume.
And the fact that he had studied the police beats doesen't make him an organized individual either. I think quite a vast number of people in this environment knew the police beats to some extent - a disorganized killer doesen't have to be a "raving lunatic", unable to act from some sort of logic or instinct of self-preservation. But that is far from pre-planning. His vicyims were most likely randomly chosen, David. I think you are making a cucko clock out of a spring feather here, in my opinion.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 9:53 am: | |
Saddam,
"I see nothing to indicate an escalation of murders, escalation of mutilations, or escalation of anything."
What happened between the killing of Polly and Mary then?
Also, if you think you know so much more about the killings than anyone else and even who did them then we should all like to know. You continuously suggest you know more than the rest of us, so please do share. Oh and please put it on plain english so we can understand you, for once. I don't mean to be rude or whatever but your posts are starting to annoy me. You suggest yet you say nothing. |
Chuck
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 6:52 pm: | |
Can anyone say Roslyn Donoston? |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 1:39 pm: | |
"You suggest yet you say nothing.'
>>Ah, but nothing is precisely the reason we're all here, a gift to us from the man himself! And that's what I know the most about, really. I'm not so much a know-nothing as a know-about-nothing, I'd say. Spent a number of years studying Hegel. I like to try to annoy people into thinking for themselves.
Saddam
|
Brad McGinnis
Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 50
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
David, to that end you have always been partially sucessful.
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 8:19 pm: | |
"What happened between the killing of Polly and Mary then?"
>>This is a question that must be asked of the murderer, not of the Ripperologist. But who knows how to interact with him?
The Center knows.
Saddam
|
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
David/Saddam/Whatever your name is,
All you make me end up thinking whenever I read your posts is just "what the hell is he on??" and then ignore them because they don't make any sense. If you're going to give clues then please, give ones we can understand. Sorry. |
Michael Blayne Raney
Police Constable
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 6
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
Sarah, ignore David or get used to him....he hasn't changed since he's been on the boards. His A?R solution or clue or whatever it is, is as annoying to the rest of us as it is to you. Or at least to myself, I wouldn't want to speak for everyone.
Mikey |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
