|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kris Law
Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 39
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 9:13 am: |       |
I think what Monty means is that the Ripper has his own definitions of what makes a suitable place, and we may never know what those qualifications were. It's not unthinkable for a prospective john to get cold feet at the last second, and it probably happened often, I don't see why the prostitute would find it at all odd.
It's even probable that he didn't say anything at all to them if he decided to abort the mission, what does he owe a lowly prostitute after all? At that time even respectable women weren't really thought of as real people, so a lowly prostitute would be one step up from a dog. If the situation felt wrong he could walk, but at the same time Buck's Row, 29 Hanbury and Mitre Square didn't seem like bad places obviously.
Perhaps Liz Stride was one of these aborts, but a little too late. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 815
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 9:19 am: | |
Hi Caz,
"To use the scene that appears the most disorganised, or risky, is not a good choice, because an organised killer could also be one who considers risk-taking a natural part of his act, might even enjoy it."
Yes, but you see, I don't believe in the latter. And that is why I pointed out Hanbury Street in the first place. That site is NOT a choice based on the need to fight a challenge, and I don't believe any of the sites are -- I think Hanbury Street and the circumstances surrounding it is too carelessly chosen for an organized killer, and I think it is quite natural to point that site out if it is the one that clearest shows that Jack really was confused and driven by instincts rather than intelligence. I hear what you say about organized killers wanting to show off and become more daring, but I don't think that applies here. Even if a murder site would be chosen for such reasons, there still would be signs of some intelligence and calculations, which there aren't in Hanbury Street, in my view. A very daring organized killer can indeed take risks as a part of the game, but not to that extent as I crosses the line of stupidity.
"And we know that with each new victim (Stride aside), he manages to polish up his act and do a bit more fancy mutilating, despite the fact that the risk factor is going to be a bit of an unknown each time, which only we can really see and assess with hindsight."
I don't really agree in that view upon the mutilations. They get worse and more extended --yes. But hardly more fancy or "polished". That they get worse each time I think is quite natural if we're dealing with an instinct killer; it doesen't have to indicate anything more than that -- and I don't believe the Ripper was more interested in the risks than what his instinct of self-preservation told him. That is why sites like Hanbury Street are of importance, because there it -- at least to me -- becomes more obvious.
"If the risk factor is an unknown quantity at the point of striking, couldn’t the regular escalation of the mutilations be a sign that Jack’s aim – and ultimate achievement (apart from the possible judgement call with Stride) - was to go one better each time, despite the dangers?"
I believe the escalated mutilations were a result of that his needs of fullfillment were getting stronger each time -- but without considering the risk-taking. I don't believe the Ripper was interested in showing off to others or himself as far as the risk-taking is concerned. He was, as I see it, only interested in doing what his instincts or "voices" told him to do, not to climb a challenge ladder. I don't believe that at all.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 816
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
"But what if someone just wants to kill them (i.e. not rape or torture them) and not get to know them but he plans how he's going to do it. Is this not organised?"
Oh yes, it most certainly can be. But as you know I don't see such evidence in the Ripper murders.
"This [the mutilations] was planned and therefore organised by the killer."
Absolutely not! Look at the mutilations, Sarah. Do you really think they look "organized" and "planned". I think they look like they were performed on emotional basis and by a complete lunatic. When I look at the mutilations I see cutting and carving in pure frenzy and random, apart from the general approach of ripping upwards and concentrating on the lower part of the body. But otherwise they seem not that consistent or planned. There are no other signs of calculation or sophistication whatsoever in the mutilations.
"We see the mutilations as unnecessary but in the killer's mind I believe he thought them necessary indeed."
Yes, but you are misinterpreting me, Sarah.
Of course they are necessary to HIM. They were most likely more important than the killing itself.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 19, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 110
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 9:55 am: | |
re his voices; Glenn why the trophies?How do these
fit a profile of a killer sick with schizophrenia?
Also-did he get caught-in Hanbury Street or anywhere else for that matter?Best Natalie |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 349
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 10:36 am: | |
Glenn,
Oh yes, it most certainly can be. But as you know I don't see such evidence in the Ripper murders.
I'm confused by what you mean here.
Absolutely not! Look at the mutilations, Sarah. Do you really think they look "organized" and "planned".
Yes they do. He planned to mutilate the victim so yes they are planned and organised by the killer.
Of course they are necessary to HIM. They were most likely more important than the killing itself.
Then what else matters? If they were necessary to the killer then he doesn't care if anyone else would think it necessary.
The fact remains that he planned to go out and kill prostitutes and then mutilate them which he did, so this means the whole thing was organised. I don't understand how you can't see this.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I didn’t mean that an organised Jack would necessarily want to ‘show off’, although that’s possible, but rather that if he finds himself led by his next prospective victim into a particularly risky location, at a risky time of the early morning, might he not have an undeniable urge to carry on, to prove to himself that he’s up to whatever challenges that location brings?
How do we know, for instance, that Jack wasn’t really cross with himself, calling himself all kinds of coward, for aborting his work on Stride?
There have always been extremely daring, highly organised people in the world who have done the stupidest things just to prove to themselves that they can. Many have paid the ultimate price in the process, because they took one too many daft risks, or went ahead, ignoring warning signs they were certainly smart enough to recognise, all because they couldn’t bear to delay their attempt any further.
Again, I’m not arguing for an organised Jack as such, just questioning your belief that he couldn’t have been.
Love,
Caz
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 817
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
"I'm confused by what you mean here."
It is quite simple (unless i misread you). You asked if a killer could be considered organized, even if he didn't like to interact and spend time with his victims. And I said, that he could. In contrast to you, though, I don't see any such signs in Jack the Ripper (since I believe that is what you were implying), namely because I don't see any planning or calculating efforts in the murders.
"Yes they do. He planned to mutilate the victim so yes they are planned and organised by the killer."
I totally disagree. How do you know that he "planned" to mutilate them?
If he had a compulsion (as I believe) to do so, that is not the same as that he "plans" it -- on the contrary. When you are planning you are doing something with a deliberate intent, with a clear intention, and an act that is worked out beforehand. We have absolutely no proof or indication saying this is the case as far as the Ripper is concerned. It is a possibility (even if I don't happen to believe so), but we can't know that.
"The fact remains that he planned to go out and kill prostitutes and then mutilate them which he did, so this means the whole thing was organised. I don't understand how you can't see this."
Once again, Sarah: How do you know that he planned to go out killing prostitutes and planned to mutilate them?
You can't take that for granted.
I and some others here have tried to point out other alternatives to why he did it (whether one believes in it or not), namely because of an instinctive compulsion to do so (without any "intelligent" or calculating features to it). I can accept your views on the planning thing as a personal theory (like my own views are -- nothing more), but hardly as stated facts. Because then you know more about his mental condition than I and some others apparently do. But we obviously see completely different things in the mutilations, Sarah. I can with all the will in the world not understand why you can't see the signs of a mentally disturbed and confused character in them, especially if we look at Eddowes or Kelly. It could very well be a smart sociopath, but something in the nature of the mutilations and my gut feeling about the whole thing tells me that it isn't. But here we probably must agree to disagree.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 818
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 1:46 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Yes, I see what you mean, and I naturally can't state with certainty that that isn't a possibility. Because I think it is -- God knows people (also sane ones) can make unexplainable strange decisions. And I am very well aware of that organized killers can make quite stupid mistakes.
I just think that IF we were talking about a murderer with some sort of cunning and daring personality, I think there would be a limit to how stupid decisions one could make, even if he wanted to prove something to himself. So I very much see your point, and it can't be disregarded, but it doesen't ring true to me -- and unless I see more persuasive explanations or proof of otherwise, I must follow the line of reasoning what my perception and gut feeling tells me. However, I do like your opinions about instinctive, animal cunning behaviour -- that is quite how I see Jack the Ripper, but in my view that doesen't go well together with someone who wants to take unnecessary risks just because of the challenge that is connected with it.
I believe he had to kill Chapman, possibly because he had an urge to kill and mutilate someone and the possibility didn't arrive sooner that night, not to prove that he could get away with the challenge of the time and location. I am quite doubtful that such thoughts ever ran through his head (if he is anything like how I have percepted him to be). Could be that you are right in that respect just the same, but it doesen't ring true to me.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 819
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 2:00 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
"re his voices; Glenn why the trophies? How do these fit a profile of a killer sick with schizophrenia?"
Yes, why the trophies, Natalie. I wish we knew, and I don't think any of us can give a true explanation to why a killer takes trophies in the first place. But of course a disorganized killer with some sort of schizofrenic disorder can take trophies as well, voices or not. But why, can only the suspect in question give an answer to.
"Also-did he get caught-in Hanbury Street or anywhere else for that matter?"
No, he obviously didn't, but that does prove nothing. I am not the only one here who have pointed out that he was extremely lucky. Once again, just because he has some disorganized traits doesn't mean he can't manage to escape. I have spoken about instinct of self-preservation during those situation and Caz has lay forward the theory of animal cunning.
That, combined with luck, knowledge of the area and an unexperienced police force, would be quite enough without giving Jack the IQ of a rocket scientist.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 71
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 2:22 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I have to be strict, so I have some comments on some of your remarks.
“Look at the mutilations, Sarah. Do you really think they look "organized" and "planned". I think they look like they were performed on emotional basis and by a complete lunatic.”
First, what would ‘organized’ and ‘planned’ mutilations have looked like? And second, I thought you gave up on the idea of a raving lunatic?
“Even if a murder site would be chosen for such reasons, there still would be signs of some intelligence and calculations, which there aren't in Hanbury Street, in my view.”
Although some of the windows at the backside of the house were open and the house was filled with people who – because of the early morning hour - could have caught him in the act, he still saw to it that nobody, not even Albert Cadosh, discerned anything suspicious. Of course, this might be explained by this instinct of self-preservation (by which you can explain all possible organized traits, I might add), but it might also be explained by some intelligence and coldbloodedness. And although it’s no direct sign of intelligence or calculations, the Ripper was most probably the one to take the rings from Annie’s finger, which is of course an organized trait.
“That they get worse each time I think is quite natural if we're dealing with an instinct killer; it doesen't have to indicate anything more than that -- and I don't believe the Ripper was more interested in the risks than what his instinct of self-preservation told him. That is why sites like Hanbury Street are of importance, because there it -- at least to me -- becomes more obvious.”
That is also why Miller’s Court is important, because there it becomes more obvious that it’s quite probable that the Ripper was more interested in the risks. Even on the face of it the fact that the Ripper finally killed indoors implies planning rather than chance. And when you take a closer look – as I have thoroughly done – it is indeed quite probable that the Ripper at least to some extent planned to kill indoors. As Caz said, a (to some extent) organized killer can make a crime scene look disorganized, but not the other way around.
Groetjes,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 112
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 2:40 pm: | |
OK-Hi Glenn-This isnt quite what I understand .Abberline was a very experienced detective with a fairly intimate knowledge of this close knit east end community who as far as we can tell knew and trusted him as well as liked him.There were others too who didnt lack the skills needed for example Dew a big name in the Crippen case.They were also thorough in their searches of houses and rooms looking for blood stains in particular and closely followed a number of suspects---at one point for example Kosminski was watched night and day.The depiction of the police seems a bit misleading sometimes-they did have some first rate people. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 822
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 8:35 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
I think your description of the police force is both right AND wrong. It is true that they were quite thorough in their investigation at several points, like pinning down suspects and interviewing witnesses. But the police at the time had no sufficient enough methods to make a proper crime scene investigation (first in the Kelly murder we can see some efforts in that respect), and the crimes scene investigation is, as we know today, almost crucial to the outcome of the whole investigation. In Polly Nichol's murder they just threw a bucket of water over the bloodstains on the ground after carrying away the body. The only way for the police at time to catch Jack was to nail him at the spot.
What I referred to when I said "unexperienced police force" was the fact that they were totally unexperienced in dealing with a serial killer like Jack the Ripper. I think that can't be disregarded and it has nothing to do with whether they were incompetent or not, I can agree that THAT would be a bit difficult to claim, taking the historical context in consideration.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 823
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 9:15 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
"First, what would ‘organized’ and ‘planned’ mutilations have looked like?"
Yes, I was wondering that myself. That was why I objected to it.
"I thought you gave up on the idea of a raving lunatic?"
That's right, I did and I still have. I think I exaggerated in my description. I meant a lunatic in the word's lesser dramatic form, like a mentally unstable person. Thank you for pointing that out (got carried away, I guess...).
"...he still saw to it that nobody, not even Albert Cadosh, discerned anything suspicious."
Did he, Frank? Cadosch didn't bother to stick his head above the fence to check what was happening -- and I believe THAT was lucky indeed for the Ripper. So it was no need for either cunning or instinct of self-preservation there. If Cadosch or anyone else would have caught him in the act, he would have no use of either of the two abilities. It was pure luck that he wasn't discovered, nothing else.
I have no idea why he took the rings from Chapmans fingers, and I can't say if it's either an organized or disorganized trait -- I think it could pass for both, actually. It is not that unusual for disorganized killer to take trophies or belongings from the victims -- and since we don't know why he took them I think it is hard to determine which as far as that detail is concerned (and goes for every case of trophie-taking in the Ripper context). So it could be an organized trait, but not "of course". 
"Even on the face of it the fact that the Ripper finally killed indoors implies planning rather than chance. And when you take a closer look – as I have thoroughly done – it is indeed quite probable that the Ripper at least to some extent planned to kill indoors."
Hmmm... maybe. I agree that it is possible, and I can't really argue against it with complete certainty.
Now, there are of course several different options in the Kelly case to consider (which really supplies us with more questions than answers): I personally believe Kelly was killed indoors because she HAD a room of his own and provided her services indoors. It's as simple as that. If the Ripper was a client she brought home (which is something we can't take for granted) he must have felt like he had hit the jack-pot, since this meant that he could "work" totally undisturbed. I don't see why this scenario would require any planning whatsoever, I think on the contrary this would indicate a free ride on the Ripper's part.
Another option is (as has been discussed by some here) that she actually was alone, asleep in the room and that the Ripper somehow found his way in (maybe he saw her through the window) and surprised her. Now, this could indicate some sort of cunning and determine behaviour, that I can't rule out. That would also be a possible indication on that he at least partly knew her and where she lived (why would he otherwise go into the narrow Miller's Court?). It could also indicate that he had seen her before and that he had followed her and therefore knew where her "office" was. That would also indicate to some extent (but only some!) a planning trait in his character -- I don't know, it's possible.
I think it is a matter of choice or personal interpretation which scenario one prefers here. I think there are problems and advantages with both (and it is possible that there are more plausible options to choose from besides these) -- but I can't disregard any of them.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 5:36 am: | |
G'day Glen,
If the Ripper watched Mary Kelly through the window and surprised her, but didn't know her personally, how could he have been absolutely sure no one was going to return to the room and walk in on him? If it happened that way wouldn't her mutilations have been minimal, so he could get out of there?
Unless he was extremely lucky, he must have had a deep conversation with Mary about personal issues, within 10 days of her murder. And why would she tell just anybody that she was living alone?
How certain are we that the fall against the fence that Albert Cadosch heard was the actual murder? It might have been so common that he ignored it!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 824
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 9:24 am: | |
G'day Leanne.
I thought you might pick up on that one.
As I stated above, I am not at all sure about what really happened in Mary Kelly's room, the facts are too sparse and the options too many, I think. I really don't have a clear picture of it. I was just referring to some discussions that has taken place on another thread. As I said, both options mentioned above has problems and advantages.
But let me just add:
"If the Ripper watched Mary Kelly through the window and surprised her, but didn't know her personally, how could he have been absolutely sure no one was going to return to the room and walk in on him?"
That could be relevant for the other alternative as well (since I am basing both options on that they DIDN'T know each other). He couldn't know if someone would barge in or not, but 13 Miller's Court is in my view a much more ideal murder site than the others, since it was out of public view. Of course, if someone would step into the door, he would indeed have been in a lot of trouble. That risk factor (which I see as the only one in connection with Mary's room, and a very slim one indeed) would be just as evident in both cases.
I know that you are going to drag this into the Barnett/personal aquaintance theory, but that is not the issue with the discussion here, Leanne, and I don't want to turn this thread into another Barnett suspect discussion. It was Frank who pointed out Miller's Court, and I just commented on it.
I can agree on stating this: IF -- but only if -- they knew each other, then there are no reason to focus on a disorganized killer. On the other hand: if they didn't, It's rather a multiple choice question to me. If he followed her on distance and then surprised her in her room, it could indicate both organized and disorganized features. Organized especially if he had studied her for some time, and for that reason knew where and how she lived. That could even suggest an important amount of planning in the process.
But it could just be the case, that he happened to spot her (and something about her that drew his attention to her) and then followed her, and there found that she had her own lodgings. That wouldn't have to indicate an intelligent killer necessarily, just that his instincts led him to kill her after he had waited til the coast was clear (which is NOT the same as planning -- as Caz has suggested, also animals do this; we shouldn't mix this up with intelligence).
"If it happened that way wouldn't her mutilations have been minimal, so he could get out of there?"
Your reasoning here is based on that the killer was a relatively organized one who calculated his risks. The killer that I have in mind, I suspect wasn't indulging much in such calculations or thoughts -- he simple did what he felt he had to do. But an organized killer would -- I believe -- reason as you do in your argument. And the fact that the mutilations are so extensive and exaggerated in Kelly's case, makes me lean on a more disorganized killer as a perpetrator of that crime.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 20, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 825
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 9:33 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
"How certain are we that the fall against the fence that Albert Cadosch heard was the actual murder? It might have been so common that he ignored it!"
We can't be, of course. I think it is quite probable that it was the event in question that Cadosch "witnessed" or over-heard, but I have never claimed with certainty that it really was -- we can't of course know that for sure.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 72
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 9:35 am: | |
Tjena Glenn,
“Did he, Frank? Cadosch didn't bother to stick his head above the fence to check what was happening -- and I believe THAT was lucky indeed for the Ripper.”
You say Cadosh didn’t bother to look over the fence. Why didn’t he? Might the answer be that what he heard didn’t sound suspiciously (enough)?
Regarding the taking of the rings, as far as I know the taking of body parts is generally regarded as a disorganized trait, and the taking of personal belongings as an organized trait. The taking of body parts may be seen as an extension, if you will, of the mutilations and can only serve a short term purpose, like eating them. Other than that I don’t see any purpose. The taking of personal belongings, however, aren’t directly connected to the act of the killing, or at least not in the sense the body parts are, and they can serve as a long term purpose, as souvenirs. The taking of body parts may also be seen as more instinctive, whereas the taking of personal items may be seen as an intended action with a long term future purpose.
“If the Ripper was a client she brought home (which is something we can't take for granted) he must have felt like he had hit the jack-pot, since this meant that he could "work" totally undisturbed. I don't see why this scenario would require any planning whatsoever, I think on the contrary this would indicate a free ride on the Ripper's part.”
Mary was killed while she was lying in bed, barely naked. Her clothes were found neatly folded on one of the chairs afterwards. It would have taken Mary quite some time (4, 5, 6 minutes?) to take off 5 layers of clothes or more and again some time to neatly fold all her clothes before finally lying down in bed. The question is, would a disorganized Ripper have been able to patiently wait all that time before striking?
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 826
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 9:48 am: | |
Tjena tjena Frank!
"You say Cadosh didn’t bother to look over the fence. Why didn’t he? Might the answer be that what he heard didn’t sound suspiciously (enough)?"
Well, I think only Cadosch himself can answer to that, Frank. The point was that the Ripper didn't really -- as we know it -- do anything himself that made it easier for him at Hanbury Street, but the fact that he wasn't spotted or caught was sheer luck, nothing else.
"Mary was killed while she was lying in bed, barely naked. Her clothes were found neatly folded on one of the chairs afterwards. It would have taken Mary quite some time (4, 5, 6 minutes?) to take off 5 layers of clothes or more and again some time to neatly fold all her clothes before finally lying down in bed. The question is, would a disorganized Ripper have been able to patiently wait all that time before striking?"
Exactly. That was why I mentioned the other alternative (that she was surprised while asleep), which has come up during discussions in connection to that particular question (not by me, but by others, I might add).
I really can't see what taking of personal belongings have more to do with the MO than the signature, as opposed to taking of body parts. I don't get it. I have never read anything about and I am not sure that I would support that if I did. Both is done post-mortem and we can't know why the perpetrator did either of them. We can speculate of course, but we know nothing whatsoever of the purpose of the acts -- Noone besides the Ripper would.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 79
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 10:23 am: | |
Frank, Glenn
I offered up this suggestion a while ago and no one seemed to bite at it, so I'll try again.
That is, Chapman's missing rings could be a red herring. We all know what sort of "trophies" Jack favored (even with Chapman) and we have no evidence that he took anything but body parts from the other victims.
However, there would seem to have been a 10-15 minute period from the discovery of the body until the arrival of the police and the sealing of the yard. In the meantime, there seems to have been a number of people crowding the passageway in order to get a look.
Only a few of these gawkers testified at the inquest and only one of those admitted being in the yard. Still, mindful of the ghoulish attraction of a serious auto accident these days, I find it easy to imagine a certain amount of milling around the yard to get a better look.
Given that situation, I would consider it a good possibility that a light-fingered fellow among the spectators snaffled the rings and scarpered.
My suggestion anyway. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 10:40 am: | |
I think in all these discussions we have to remember that "organized" and "disorganized" are opposite ends of a spectrum. It would be well to consider that spectrum. If we instituted a scale of one to ten with one being pure disorganized and ten being pure organized, Jack would probably wind up somewhere in the middle. It is likely that the differences expressed here are a matter of degree, with one person opting for Jack at 4 and another at 6. If Jack had been a 1 he would have been so disconnected from reality that even the simplest animal self preservation instincts would have been impaired and he would have been caught. On the other hand, a pure 10 might not kill at all, at least not in the legal sense. Agatha Christie once wrote a novel about an SK who could never be brought to justice because their MO was to create emotional havoc in the life of the victim until said victim committed suicide. They got their jollies out of this. It was Hercule Poirot's last case and he dealt with it by taking the unthinkable step of shooting the perp because he knew they could never be prosecuted. That is how I would view a 10. Or maybe a surgeon who would lose a carefully selected patient from time to time. One who had a less than 50/50 chance of survival anyway. How about the HMO executive who gets a sense of power out of setting policies that deny people life saving medical proceedures. We don't know much about the 10's because they get away with it most of the time. I see Jack as somewhere in the middle. Someone less organized than a 1 would not kill because they would not be capable of even the simplest coherent action, such as aiming and firing a gun. Someone more organized than a 10 might have some strange impulses but they would not give in to them because they would be rational enough to see the danger to themselves. It is the middle where we must look for the most dangerous. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 11:24 am: | |
Hi Don
Your ring idea is certainly possible. I don't believe the people of the area woukld have been above this - the neighbours charged a penny a peep for a view of the site.
I just wonder, though. Presumably the thief would have had to get the rings off her fingers without any other bystander seeing. Well, I suppose an expert thief could have managed that, under the guise of feeling to see if her hands were warm. But the rings themselves would have been highly incriminating items to be found on one's person
or to be caught trying to sell.
Robert |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 80
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 1:38 pm: | |
Robert,
I don't discount the possibility Jack had removed the rings and left them with her few other effects. That would make them much easier to pluck. And, alas, robbing the dead at accident scenes is still not uncommon.
I would doubt there was much worry about being caught with the rings -- if someone did grab them, he/she left the area immediately. Of course, as it turned out the police alerted pawn shops and the items became very "hot" indeed, but the thief didn't know that at the time. So they might have been dumped or easily enough sold to sailors ready to ship out.
I am attracted to the idea mainly because we have no other evidence Jack took anything but corporal "trophies" from his victims.
Don. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 2:43 pm: | |
Don, yes, good point - as his taking the rings seems to be out of place with the rest of his pattern, it would be nice to have an alternative explanation, and theft provides this.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 827
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 7:26 pm: | |
Hi Don,
"That is, Chapman's missing rings could be a red herring. We all know what sort of "trophies" Jack favored (even with Chapman) and we have no evidence that he took anything but body parts from the other victims.
However, there would seem to have been a 10-15 minute period from the discovery of the body until the arrival of the police and the sealing of the yard. In the meantime, there seems to have been a number of people crowding the passageway in order to get a look."
I agree. I have never myself taken for granted that Jack really took those rings in the first place. And I think your scenario is quite plausible.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
"Being rational means taking what we know and then coming to a logical conclusion."
>>Notice that Mr. Norder here omits any reference to investigating the nature of knowledge itself as being part of being rational. His is apparently an epistem-less rationality. How do we know what we think we know? Do we really know it? And could we perhaps know more than we think we know? No dynamical arbitration or mediation of the realms of the known to the unknown takes place. Accordingly, all the rationality in the world may not be enough to get from anywhere to anywhere. There is no system. Nothing is held close by or apart from anything else. What we have essentially is dissociation, nothing, oblivion, ending of endings.
End.
Bullwinkle
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
