|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 828
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 7:36 pm: |       |
Hi Diana,
I absolutely agree with you, and as I've said before, even if a believe in a disorganized offender -- or a mixed one leaning towards disorganized -- I don't believe in a raving lunatic. If he were that demented he wouldn't be able to pull it off.
But I think it is important to focus on the more characteristic parts of what one see as his main personality -- all his other features aside. Otherwise things become too complicated and speculative (or rather, more than they already are). I don't believe we have enough information to paint such a detailed picture of Jack's emotional state and behaviour, and to consider every individual trait would make the whole effort even more impossible.
I therefore prefer to concentrate on the main characteristics, although there naturally is a danger of generalisations restricting our description. But I believe that can't be helped.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 74
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 10:35 pm: | |
Ha die Glenn,
“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.”
I was really reacting because of the italic part of your remark.
“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.”
The Ripper timed badly and ended up on a spot uncomfortably close to occupied rooms, we know that he didn’t do a good job up to that point, that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that therefore everything he did was done badly. So, maybe this was the only thing he (purposely) did right. The fact remains that the Ripper attacked, killed and mutilated silently enough to get away, even with Cadosh very close by at some moments. By the way, this doesn’t mean that he wasn’t lucky not to get caught. And another by the way, Cadosh can only answer this through a medium.
“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.”
I should have left it at just saying that – as far as I know - the taking of personal items is generally regarded an organized trait, whereas the taking of body parts is generally regarded a disorganized trait. I was trying to make sense of this ‘knowledge’ by saying that the taking of body parts seems to be more of a subconscious thing and the taking of personal items seems to be more of a conscious thing. But I didn’t do a good job expressing myself well, so I should have left it out.
Catch you later,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 829
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 3:07 pm: | |
"Ha die" Frank,
(You better help me out there, Frank -- couldn't find it in my European dictionary... does it mean "Hi there"?)
"I was really reacting because of the italic part of your remark."
Probably, but I can't see why. I can't see it in any other way, really. I meant every word of it.
"we know that he didn’t do a good job up to that point, that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that therefore everything he did was done badly."
No, but facts remains that he didn't make it easy for himself -- he was indeed lucky, in my view. But it least I think it shows that he wasn't that smart as some claim he was.
"And another by the way, Cadosh can only answer this through a medium."
Ah yes! Maybe I should contact a friend of mine, then. 
That was a short one, Frank. Christmas preparations, eh?
Hej så länge
(Message edited by Glenna on December 21, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 3:23 pm: | |
He knew enough to pick on the most vulnerable. He wasn't so cuckoo as to go after respectable west end matrons. He knew enough to do what he had to do quickly and make his escape. He was perspicacious enough to be able to dispatch his victims quickly and noiselessly. He had probably scoped out the neighborhood for escape routes. He was probably capable of holding down some kind of job as the killings were done on weekends and holidays and he had money or they wouldn't have gone with him. He also didn't look so crazy that they weren't willing to go with him.
On the other hand you have choices like Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Berner's Street as crime scenes. Mitre Square was a little better as it was apparently deserted. Then you have the apparently crazed and haphazard way the bodies were hacked up.
It's almost as if he managed to maintain a certain level of rationality until it was almost time for the actual kill and then he went berserk. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 831
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 3:31 pm: | |
I can agree on most most parts of that description, Diana. He bears indeed a character of contradictions in some respects.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 352
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 4:36 am: | |
Glenn,
You asked my how did I know that he planned to mutilate these women. I do not know, but how can you say that he didn't plan them. How do you know that he didn't plan to mutilate them. You can't object to this being planned if you have no proof that he didn't plan it. You need to give a more solid argument for why you say he didn't plan the mutilation, not just that you don't know what planned mutilations would look like. Mutilations of this sort would always look messy, so to say they were not planned and organised on this basis is silly.
There are signs of an organised and disorganised killer here if I go on the ideas of what you are saying makes up these types.
We will never know if he planned to kill and mutilate them just as we will never know if he did.
My point is that you cannot say that he was disorganised unless you know for a fact that he didn't plan the killings and the mutilations that followed. I am not saying for a fact he was organised but to me it looks more like he was, but again I don't know for sure.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 548
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 7:25 am: | |
Kris,
Thats exactly what Im trying to say...thank you.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 832
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 10:20 am: | |
Sarah,
That was my point as well, since you in your posts have stated with such certainty that Jack WAS planning. That was what I objected to; you seemed to be taking it for granted.
I have never been sure of anything. I deduct that he didn't plan his crimes from the fact that I can't see any evidence of such. I can only deduct from what my eyes and my gut tells me, nothing else. Why should -- just for the sake of it -- I consider planning if I don't see any signs of it?
But I have NEVER said that it should be considered a stated fact. I have said a million times, Sarah, that I could be utterly wrong about this. I am only saying what I think, while you express yourself with great certainty. If you read some of my latest post, you'll see that I have actually considered planning in some of the murders (even though I myself don't believe in it), depending on which interpretation of the events one chooses to support.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 551
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 11:59 am: | |
Guys,
I mentioned this before (I think !) but there could be a confusion here between the terms organised, disorganised and mixed in context of Serial Killers and their catagories.
Maybe someone, who is far more qualified, can clarify this.
I think Glenn is saying (and Im sorry if you are not mate) is that Jack shows more signs of being disorganised (killing in an enviroment he has no control of, no attempt to hide/cleanse the body, removal of body parts, ect) than organised.
Yes, obviously he planned (or had an urge) to kill but this isnt to be confused with an organised, thoroughly thought through (man that was hard to type !) event.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 357
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Glenn,
I don't recall saying that it was a fact that he planned. Where did I say this? I'm not saying it was fact that he planned it, but in my mind I see that he planned to kill the women. He also think he planned to mutilate them. Maybe the whole thing wasn't thought out but some of it was. He probably picked his victim upon approaching them and had plans to kill and mutilate them, that is what I see.
For you to say that you don't think he planned it due to lack of evidence of planning, then I ask you this. What evidence should there have been to show he planned it?
He may have wanted to kill them, mutilate them and leave them on show. The fact that all that happened doesn't show any evidence that he was disorganised. I'm not saying he was organised as I don't know but I don't understand how you can work out that he probably wasn't.
Sarah |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 2:08 pm: | |
Hi everyone interesting thread. Many people always come forward in cases such as this with information that is bogus and misleading. some eyewitnesses mean well and are trying to help while otheres are lieing because they want attention. The jack the ripper case was very high profile and that often brings such people out. Just remember recent history with the sniper case all the witnesses who ment well stateing there was a white van involved and then the not so good witness who claimed to have witnessed the shooting. He was later proven to be lieing. So witch witness in the kelly murder do you believe.Morris lewis claiming to see her return with milk around 8:30 this would colaberate Maxwells statement of haveing seen her around. So we know kelly was alive and well at 8:30. We can assume if we are to believe maxwell that she was responsive because maxwell claimed to have spoke with her. Mary claimed to have been suffering from the horrers of drink. I could see how a drunk women could start to make tea and pass out leaving the kettle to melt. I cold see how a drunk person could mistakenly start a fire by being careless with matches but a responsive person would not let the flames get so out of controll. Remember the body was foud undressed with the cloths neatly folded this would indicate kelly was going to sleep for awhile. would she put tea on and then undressand lay down on the bed. This is possible and maybe she got to comfortable and haveing been out all nite simple fell a sleep. That could explain the burning kettle. However we have another sighting of her with Joe at 10:00 that same morning. In order to believe this you would have to believe that Kelly went home made tea for some reason let the kettle burn. obviously she would not of undressed just to dress again to meet Joe at 10:00 Maybe she left the fire going when she went to meet Joe but why would she do that. Maybe she was not planing to have tea at all untill after she saw Joe. Maybe she was planning to have tea with joe. Maybe her and joe went back to her place put the tea on had a cup of tea Mary undressed Joe left the kettle was still burning Mary fell asleep and then the ripper came in and killed kelly. If you believe the witness and Kelly was with Joe at 10:00 then you almost ceartainly have to believe that Joe killed her.Remember the body was found at 10:45. Assumeing that the corroner was not a complete idiot the body had been dead for at least few seconds. Now of course this is takeing all the witnesses at face value and believing there times are accurate. Many people estmate time wrong. I am sure we all have. I have read a few post sugesting that it was not Kelly at all. This is possible. We have a witness placeing kelly with joe at 10:00. Of corse why would she have not come forward and tell the police that she was alive. You would think that she would have known the person sleeping in her bed and that she would have felt some grieve and responsibility to do so. Some people have suggested that she used this chance to vanish.Maybe leave the country. Why could she just not leave anyway? Was she wanted? Was she hideing from some one? Why did Joe help her by lieing to the police? Why didnt joe go with her? There is another possibility mabe Mary was protecting someone. Maybe she knew who the ripper was. Why protect him? that would suggest Mary was not so sweet. All of this is speculation. purely based on eyewitness reports. Do we know when the kettle was actually burned? Another problem with this theory that she was killed in the morning after 10:00 is that the ripper would be takeing a huge risk. With all thease witnesses about. Some one would have seen him unless It was not kelly murderd at all or Barnett was in fact the ripper. He could go in and out with out attracting to much attention. I dont support barnett as the ripper I am just pointing out were the eye witnesses lead us. Has anyone thought of the possibility that the kettle melted when the cloths were burned? Maybe Kelly was not planing to have tea. I feel that Kelly was killed between 2:00 and 4:00 in the morning. I base this assumption funny enough on the eyewitness testimony of Cox and Hutchinson.lol There is so many twist to this case and i guess that is why it is so interesting. Some have suggested that the murder sites had been picked out in advance by the ripper. I believe it was so easy for the ripper because the women took him to the place they knew the chance of interuption was least likely. This theory was suggested by Inspector Edmund Reed at the time. I enjoy reading the post. Keep up the good work. Take care. CB |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 11:43 am: | |
Hi Sarah
"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."
Where is your evidence for this? Why couldn't he simply be planning to go with a prostitute (admittedly something furtive in itself, the more so the higher his social standing) and something in the interaction with the prostitute triggers his killing/multilation impulse? All he needs to have with him is a knife which he may carry for work or self defense (it was a rough place) and some kind of cloak or overcoat which he might well carry as part of his normal attire.
In that case it will have been the prostitute who selected the (relatively) secluded locatiion, not JtR.
Regards
Pete |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 836
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
Hi Pete,
We seem to be speaking the same language here. I naturally agree with you, and it was exactly that quote I reacted to in Sarah's post.
Of course, Sarah has a good point when she says "how would evidence of him planning the murder look like", and I must admit, that is a good question and I think I expressed myself a bit carelessly. I'd say we have no evidence either way.
But the reason I don't believe he planned the killings, is that there really was no need to, and I also don't see that the nature of the murders fit a character who plans his crimes -- I believe the murders look to random and mutilations much too frenzied and confused. As I said, my points are mostly based on a gut feeling (rather than evidence) and I can't claim their accuracy with certainty in any way.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 7:43 pm: | |
The questions are not "planned" or "unplanned", "organized" or "disorganized", but rather, how planned, and how organized. He thought he might kill tonite so he brought his knife. He at least took enough trouble to make himself aware of escape routes or he wouldn't have gotten away. He must have brought money or they wouldn't have gone with him.
On the other hand he did not think ahead too much when his victim led him to the crime scene, because some of them were very poor choices. Leaving the victim to be found in the open increased his chance of being caught. In
Chapman's case I believe there was a coal chute nearby which he could have availed himself of. There were abandoned buildings in Mitre Square. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 838
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 8:01 pm: | |
Hi Diana.
"He thought he might kill tonite so he brought his knife."
I am not so sure we can take that for granted in order to make that an organized act. I believe, as Pete and also myself earlier have suggested, that there is a possibility that he always carried a knife with him on a regular basis, either because he had used it in a former occupation (or in a present one) or for his own protection -- or a combination of both. There is no reason to assume that he brought it with him especially for the purpose of committing murder.
"He at least took enough trouble to make himself aware of escape routes or he wouldn't have gotten away. He must have brought money or they wouldn't have gone with him."
THAT I think is reasonable organized traits to consider. Quite possible.
"On the other hand he did not think ahead too much when his victim led him to the crime scene, because some of them were very poor choices. Leaving the victim to be found in the open increased his chance of being caught. In
Chapman's case I believe there was a coal chute nearby which he could have availed himself of. There were abandoned buildings in Mitre Square."
I absolutely agree. I have had those deserted buildings at Mitre Square in mind myself in the Ripper context.
However, that depends on if he had a certain purpose of leaving the bodies at display, as a part of the signature -- as a message if you will (like how we sometimes see with some psychopaths). I don't think that is the case here, though -- which is why I think he ought to have used the buildings if he was thinking rationally. But then again, maybe there was not enough time? Anyway, although this can't be disregarded, I prefer to go along with Diana's interpretation here.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 8:49 pm: | |
Even if his need was to execute display, from the viewpoint of pure self preservation it was not a smart move.
There are two possible scenarios: 1) He obsessed about killing and mutilating, so whenever he went out he was purposely trolling, seeking his chance. 2) He didn't intend to kill when he went out. He always carried a knife and when the prostitute did something to enrage him, they set him off.
We have to consider these scenarios in light of the October lull. I believe that after the double event the level of vigilance rose to such heights that he was prevented from killing anyone for almost six weeks.
If we accept that he was trolling then he apparently didn't get into a situation that he felt safe in for that period of time. There was enough organization that he could foresee his possible apprehension and took steps to avoid it. It is even possible that he got a good scare the night of the double event. Maybe he was even questioned or nearly caught.
If we accept that he did not set off with the intention of killing, but rather lost control as a consequence of some action of the prostitute then we are left with the question of how he managed to maintain more self control in the month of October. The argument for the first scenario does not hold because it posits a loss of control which would not have been affected by the increased patrols. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 9:08 pm: | |
Glenn, unless I am mistaken it must be about 2 or 3 in the morning where you are. Lots of coffee? |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 841
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 11:06 pm: | |
Hi Diana,
Surprise!
Now it's nearly five in the morning! Even more coffee..
Well, I'm off to bed now -- I am a night owl and prefer to work at night and sleep during the day. But now I have to get serious about keeping fresh for Christmas, so I better do some quick change in my habits...
As you understand, I'd probably go for the second scenario. Let me just -- for curiousity -- ask where you find "more self-control" in October. It could be something I missed, so I'd really like to know.
However, I think all your arguments are very interesting and valid and I'd buy them all any day. Great thoughts, Diana.
All the best and good night.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 358
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 4:29 am: | |
Glenn,
How can you say that I believe the murders look too random? How can a murder look random? I'm not saying he picked these women out but I was curious as to know what makes a murder look random?
Also I want to address the following comment of that sentence which says and mutilations much too frenzied.
How can mutilations to a body look less than frenzied? Even if he planned to mutilate, which I believe he did once he had killed them, the mutilations would look the same. To mutilate is to destroy and this would leave the victim looking a tad on the messy side whether he planned to do it or not.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 562
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 7:04 am: | |
Hi All,
Diana’s two scenarios, when considered alongside the lull in October, and ‘hitting the jackpot’ in November, make me feel even more uneasy about Glenn’s disorganised Jack, who incidentally carries a nice sharp knife and wears clothing that doesn’t pose any serious problems post-attack, with bodily parts being taken away etc, yet isn’t actually intending or expecting to find himself encountering, attacking, killing and mutilating another suitably vulnerable woman each time he happens to be walking the Whitechapel streets at night.
After the first one or two attacks, can we really believe that the character who eventually got away with all of them, fatal or non-fatal, was incapable of predicting, or would not have been half expecting, the likely outcome of subsequent encounters with such women?
Obviously, if Jack was aware of the danger he posed to the female street-walkers, and the risks to his own neck each time he lost control with one of them, he either didn’t care, or couldn’t stop himself anyway. But how far could luck and instinct have taken him, realistically, if he didn’t have a reasonable awareness, between attacks, of what would or could happen when he again faced the kind of situation that triggered the most recent one?
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 361
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 7:13 am: | |
Caz,
I think you said it perfectly there.
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 842
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 1:04 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I think you're raising quite a valid point. I believe the fact that he took organ trophies and carried them with him from the crime scenes, is one of the best arguments for a killer with a deliberate intent. That I can accept and admit. Especially since we don't know how he did this. However, it doesen't exclude the possibility of him being a mixed personality, a point of view I now prefer to stand by rather than the plain disorganized character.
I don't think we should make too much fuzz about the knife and the clothes. Most mens' ware were black anyway -- at least it was very common and quite ordinary. And I don't believe carrying a knife in East End would be that unique either. It is quite possible that he would carry out his murders and the signature with another kind of weapon if he hadn't got the knife, and as I said; it is quite plausible that he carried the knife anyway, since there is a good chance for him holding a occupation (or a former occupation) where knives are involved.
"But how far could luck and instinct have taken him, realistically, if he didn’t have a reasonable awareness, between attacks, of what would or could happen when he again faced the kind of situation that triggered the most recent one?"
Once again, Caz, your reasoning are built on that I believe in a raving lunatic, which I don't. Regardless if he was mainly organized or disorganized, there are indications on that he was quite a complex character anyway. So you're right, the killer you refer to (addressed to me) would most certainly not get away with it. I've never said (not in recent posts, at least), that he was confused and unaware all the time -- I think it is quite possible that he could have moments of awareness, and especially between the murders. But I believe I have only myself to blame for being too rigid earlier in my support of the more radical disorganized theory.
I still believe he had some disorganized traits, maybe even as his main personality feature but I also believe he had his moments of clarity. And maybe -- but just maybe -- it could have been the other way around as well.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 843
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 1:27 pm: | |
Sarah,
"How can you say that I believe the murders look too random? How can a murder look random? I'm not saying he picked these women out but I was curious as to know what makes a murder look random?"
I simply meant that there are no indications on that he planned to murder these women because of who they were as individuals. To murder a couple of prostitutes that as a group were in a vulnerable position, because of their working conditions, doesn't necessarily require planning. I simply meant that victims were picked out randomly and also murdered by chance and opportunity, since there are no other features (apart from the age regarding most of them) that links them to one another (although there are those who claim the victims knew each other, which I think is a long shot.
"How can mutilations to a body look less than frenzied? [...] To mutilate is to destroy and this would leave the victim looking a tad on the messy side whether he planned to do it or not."
I don't agree with you. This can be done in quite different ways, and also in connection with the Ripper we can see discrepancies in the mutilations. If we disregard Stride in this context, compare Polly Nichols with Eddowes and Mary Kelly. To my eyes it is evident that the mutilations in Nichols' case were more neatly and carefully done, while there in the later murders -- in my interpretation -- seem to be more rage involved and an escalating loss of control for each murder. I believe, just be looking at them, that Kelly's body is mutilated in a more frenzied manner than for example Nichols' and Chapman's. There are different ways to mutilate a body, Sarah. It is always messy to a certain degree, but it doesen't necessarily have to reveal itself to such an exaggerated extent as we see in the Ripper murders.
And just for clarification: I do believe that he intended to mutilate his victim as soon as the idea of killing her came into his head -- I have never claimed the opposite. But with planning, I mean a deliberate intent from the very minute he stepped out the door of his hideaway -- that I think is more questionable and a matter of debate.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Glenn, I went to bed at 9:00 last nite and have been baking Christmas cookies all day, so this is my first chance to see/answer your question. Thank you so much for your kind words.
If you once buy into the proposition that the increased patrols in October were what kept him from killing during that month and the first week of November then your exploding Jack set off by a triggering behavior is in trouble. A loss of control is just that -- a loss of control. When the frontal lobes shut down and the hypothalamus takes over there is no contemplation of consequences, only a childish desire to fulfill every whim. Jack was apparently aware of the increased patrols and accordingly cut back. He responded in a rational way to the new limitations of his situation.
Come to think of it, if you accept Stride as a victim the same thing is true. He had killed his victim and was ready to mutilate her when Diemschutz showed up. For those of us more normal mortals the only thing I can think of to compare it to is unwrapping a delicious piece of candy, and opening one's mouth only to have it snatched. The need to mutilate was not so overwhelming, he was not so berserk that he became unaware of the need to escape.
Well, I got the chocolate chips done and the cherry coconut bars. On to the scotch shortbread!
(Message edited by Diana on December 23, 2003) |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 846
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 5:29 pm: | |
Hi Diana,
Now it's 23:25 in the evening here, so I'll keep my word and try and go to bed like a normal person this time, unless I want to look like  on Christmas Eve. Anyhow, this will probably be one of the last posts I'll pen down before the holidays.
OK. I see your point about October. It is probably true, if I recall correctly, that it was during that period, the vigilance commitee and an increasing police force began watching the streets. So he obviously had enough awareness to lay low for a while (unless he temporarily was put away for some minor crime -- not that I really believe it, but there is always a slim possibility). But that would nevertheless lead to an emotional need of letting of steam when he finally got the chance, wouldn't it? Maybe the extremely gruesome attack on Kelly was a result of that, in combination with the suitable conditions indoors?
Just a pointer regarding Stride (if we consider her as a Ripper victim) -- you write: "The need to mutilate was not so overwhelming, he was not so berserk that he became unaware of the need to escape." I believe his natural instincts told him to escape, then he was indeed aware enough to manage to do it under quite harsh conditions -- that is correct. But his need to mutilate was overwhelming enough for him to mutilate another woman less than an hour later, leaving her in a much worse state than the previous victims. The interruption (if we consider this a plausible theory) may have temporarily made him come to his senses and turn on the logic channel, but -- if we look at Eddowes -- only for the few minutes it took him to leave behind him the confusion on Berner Street. Then he must have felt worse and more frustrated than ever. But that is just my own personal speculations regarding his psychological reactions (for what it's worth). If Stride was a Ripper victim, it is my belief that the attack on Eddowes shortly after (with an even greater degree of mutilation) would point at a character with very strong urges and impulses -- impulses the unsuccessful Stride incident didn't managed to suppress.
"For those of us more normal mortals the only thing I can think of to compare it to is unwrapping a delicious piece of candy, and opening one's mouth only to have it snatched."
That was one of the best metaphors to describe it I've read so far, Diana.
(Did I mention I am a chocolate maniac...?)
Once again, very valuable inputs, Diana. Have a nice holiday.
Hmmm... those chocolate chips sounds tempting...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
