|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 482
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 3:18 pm: |       |
Hi Glenn, Frank and All
I didn't mean to imply that it was the NORM for serial killers to stop killing or stop for lengthy periods of time. I was pointing out that it is not unheard of for serial killers to stop their activities altogether. I still would consider it to be more likely that being a young serial killer Jack would not have stopped of his own volition. institutionalization, death or imprisonment as well as leaving his old hunting grounds for greener pastures are the more likely scenarios in my mind.
If someone put a gun to my head and asked me what happened to JTR I would say that he left London and may have shipped out to the Americas. I think the least likely scenario is that he killed himself although I realize some serial opt for this as a way out.
All The Best
Gary |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
Hi,
you are all talking as if ' jack' was a typical serial killer. his killings may have been simply, a pathetic effort, to attempt to right things, and when these attempts, failed to acheive the objective, which was in his mind, killed the reason for the killings , and the murders ceased.
We can not possible know , how such a person, could carry on life, with no concious, but, if he convinced himself that, he had done , what he had to do , it is possible, that his mental state, could have carried on a normal lifestyle.
Richard. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 483
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
Hi Richard
I have to say Jack showed all the indications of a rather typical, serial killer. The objective for a serial killer is fantasy gratification and domestic killers just don't seem to kill in the same fashion. The exception would be if MJK's killer was trying to make her killing look like the work of a serial killer. However, if this were the case I don't understand how he could engage in the overkill displayed in Kelly's case.
No matter how much a domestic killer despises his victim, he will not show the desire for the sadistic gratification of a true serial killer.
All The Best
Gary
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 337
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 5:27 pm: | |
Hi all
What ever Jack was he wasn't typical!! (or should that be typo-cal!) I still think we're looking too closely inside 'the profile'..can't help but think we need to look for that 'invisible ' man..let's go....seek!!
suzi |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 485
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 8:05 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
Why do you feel Jack was an atypical serial killer? Just curious.
All The Best
Gary |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 11:06 pm: | |
Richard,
"his killings may have been simply, a pathetic effort, to attempt to right things, and when these attempts, failed to acheive the objective, which was in his mind, killed the reason for the killings , and the murders ceased.
[...]
...it is possible, that his mental state, could have carried on a normal lifestyle."
Absolutely not. That is complete nonsense. These are not ordinary killings. A man such as you describe could just as well kill the target of his troubles with an ordinary strangulation or a stab with a knife, and after that would have felt that he'd completed his mission.
The Ripper murders are something completely different. Why the extensive and unnecessary mutilations if the motive just was to kill off someone? Jack the Ripper displays all signs of a serial killer -- and to me it is fairly evident that the murders are done without a certain motive in mind. No I don't think it is psychologically possible that he could have carried on a normal life-style after murders such as that of Eddowes and Mary Kelly.
You may feel free to search for something in the murders that makes sense, but I believe that will be to no avail.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1070
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 3:26 am: | |
G'day,
The Ripper may not have stopped killing after Mary Kelly. The 'Jack the Ripper' myth, M.O., and frequency only may have stopped. That's all. He may have been just lucky enough not to get caught! What does everything think of that suggestion?
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 340
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 6:31 am: | |
Leanne
I agree with that idea...Think the m.o. change is a very strong runner here..p'raps change of location too may have helped him (her) to avoid detection!
Your turn
Suzi |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
leanne
i think you are correct. there is no reason at all that i have been convinced by. why did the police jump to htis conclusion was it bcos they thought the killer was druitt?
no serial killer is 'typical' they are all different but what makes something 'typical' or average or whatever it is that they all have something in common ie the way they kill may be different but there is something about it they compels them to carry on. this is what makes them different to a 'normal' killer who may kill more than one person for a rreason, ie trying to get rid of them. so in this sense that could be a reason why JTR stopped.
i don't really know and was more asking
jennifer |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 9:15 pm: | |
Jennifer wrote:
"long periods but forever and ever? "
And what makes you think Jack stopped forever and ever with MJK? There are all sorts of knife attacks in London immediately after, there's Carrie Brown in the U.S. later, there are rumored ripper-like killings in ports across the world, there are the Camden murders, there are additional torso murders, there's Kitty Ronan killed right upstairs from MJK's old place (in Elizabeth Prater's old lodgings!) in 1909, and undoubtedly many more that could be dragged up. Now I'm not saying that any one of those had to have been Jack's work, but I do think it's rather silly to just assume that none of them were.
Suzi wrote:
"What ever Jack was he wasn't typical!!"
And, why, pray tell, do you think that? It looks like just another serial killer to me, nothing too out of the ordinary except for the world-wide press coverage, and that probably had more to do with location (London was pretty much the center of the world at the time) and the time (when it was still rather new to people). |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hi Jeff, I dont think Alice Mckenzie was a ripper victim. However, I understand your thought prosses and I believe it to be sound. I think people should remember the shocking thing about this case is not the unfortunate fact that prostitutes were killed but the way they were killed. the mutilation of the body and the takeing of the organs. no matter who you preferd suspect you have to answer one important question why did the ripper take the organs and what did he do with them. Take care CB |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
Dan,
"Now I'm not saying that any one of those had to have been Jack's work, but I do think it's rather silly to just assume that none of them were."
Not really, at least regarding some of them. It is possible that murders similar in style and violence in other parts of Britain or the rest of the world could be attributed to the Ripper, but I can see no logic in, why the Ripper would turn back to occasional stabbing or throat-cutting murders -- without mutilations -- considering the nature of his other, especially later killings. It just doesen't add up at all.
In my belief, McKenzie or Frances Coles most certainly weren't Ripper victims. However, such events like the Camden murders or the torso killings I think are interesting in this context, and regarding those I can't rule out the possibility. I still think MJK was the last one, though, but that is only a matter of personal opinion.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
I just want to add that I naturally don't believe that the Camden murderer and the Ripper are one and the same, since the former operated in 2002. I was a bit unfocused here. I just simply meant that known or unknown killings of these kinds, contemporary with the Ripper or years thereafter, of course can't be disregarded as far as he Ripper is concerned. Just a clarification...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 192
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
I don't think Jack was a "typical" serial killer either, if by typical you mean your garden-variety sociopathic lust murderer, as the vast majority of famous serial killers are known to have been. I think it's far more likely that he falls into the relatively rare, Richard Chase/Ed Gein model of the serial murderer who is actually mentally ill. I haven't read up on James Kelly, but if what Alan says is true (and I have no reason to doubt him), then Kelly must warrant further investigation.
As Gary Ridgway proves, serial killers do stop for sometimes long periods for reasons known only to themselves. However, what is more important to our discussion is that they started back up again at some point. While the number of suicides among them is fairly small, it does happen, just as the occasional homicide, where the killer becomes the victim, occurs as well (Dean Corll is an example). Although we don't know for a fact that the Ripper murders stopped, I think it's safe to say that murders of this very specific type (throat cut, followed by frenzied mutliation and the removal of the victim's organs from the scene) ended with Mary Kelly--in London, at the very least. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 151
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 6:05 pm: | |
Hi Erin,
"I think it's far more likely that he falls into the relatively rare, Richard Chase/Ed Gein model of the serial murderer who is actually mentally ill."
As far my knowledge about Richard Chase goes, I think he was a good example of a 'raving lunatic'. When he opened his mouth nothing but nonsense seems to have come out. He didn't only talk like a 'lunatic', I believe he also looked like one. As far as his murders are concerned he struck as soon as he was close enough to his victims and didn't make any effort to do anything that might have prevented him from being caught.
Jack the Ripper didn't strike as soon as he was close enough to his victims and although he might not have had lengthy conversations with his victims, what little he said didn't make him seem too suspicious, nor did his behaviour, whereas I think Richard Chase wouldn't have been able to pull this off. When the Ripper killed he saw to it that he didn't get much blood on him and he got away from the crime scenes without leaving a trace. I think if the Ripper had been anything like Richard Chase, there would have been every chance that he would have been caught, because the police were looking for a 'raving-lunatic' kind of Jack the Ripper.
I think Jack the Ripper managed to do fairly well socially and that he didn't stand out. He may have suffered from schizophrenia or a similar disorder, but only a mild form and certainly not the extreme form Richard Chase was suffering from.
All the best,
Frank |
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 24
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 7:30 pm: | |
Great thread!
Good point concerning we aren't sure who the victims are let alone the killer. Over the years I have changed my mind so many times . . . I believe though that that is part of the fascination. Having to choose at this point in my life, I would have to say that George Hutchinson is my leading suspect. He certainly is a biographical mystery who I would think we all would like to know more about. I have always believed that the Ripper knew Kelly and if we take Hutchinson's word that he knew Kelly, he and Barnett are the only two who can be linked to Kelly directly.
I enjoy this site so much because there is a wealth of information we have right on our computer screen (just look at the daily happenings) yet there is so much more we need to discover.
An aside: Last night, I attended an art show in which a good friend of mine was featured. In some of the paintings, women were in compromising positions who looked lifeless. One in particular had a woman prone and with her throat missing. My friend has no interest in JTR although he is aware of the work of Sickert. I find it interesting that if you have a base of knowledge and look hard enough, you can see anything you want.
Rod |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 486
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 9:14 pm: | |
Hello Frank, Erin And All
I can't improve upon what Frank had to say on the question of the type of serial killer Jack was, so I will keep it brief. Jack was not a raving lunatic like Chase or crazy Eddie Gein. If he had been he would have been captured straight away.
All The Best
Gary |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 194
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 11:00 pm: | |
And the police knew about, and kept track of, every mentally ill person in Whitechapel? No wonder they didn't catch the Ripper!
I wonder if any of you have actually read anything in depth about Richard Chase. Yes, he had a history of mental illness. He was in and out of institutions for most of his adult life, although he was eventually "released and deemed no longer a danger to anyone," according to the Crime Library. Yes, people thought he was strange. An individual does not always descend into full-blown psychosis overnight. With some people it takes time. The police did not pick him up immediately after the first murder; in fact, weeks later he committed another set of murders. The police had no clue who he was (he didn't stick around the crime scenes, waiting to get caught--the survival instinct is strong, even in a crazy person) until a woman he knew from high school spoke with him in a grocery store parking lot and thought he matched the physical description put out by police of the killer. She tipped the police off, and they only began to suspect him after learning he had a history of mental illness.
Chase's deterioration was rapid. Although never considered "normal," he did manage to function, at least on some level, for a time. He was never a suspect until brought to the attention of the police by someone who had known him prior to his descent into psychosis. They only knew what to look for, furthermore, because they had an FBI profile. Perhaps he would have been caught even without the profile, or the report from the woman in the parking lot. Perhaps not. Does every crazy person who commits murder always get caught, even today?
I find it interesting that the same people who are willing to entertain wild notions about Jack's identity are loathe to admit the possibility that he might have been mentally ill. You seem to have this very narrow conception of what a mentally ill person looks like (a "raving lunatic"), but mental illness is a complex phenomenon and its manifestations are often quite particular to the subject. I'm not saying that the Ripper was exactly like Chase in every respect, just that he was the same type of killer. Of course, I don't pretend to know for certain if this was the case, but I try not to dismiss any possibility out of hand, because the fact is, I don't know for sure, and neither do you. I do, however, try to support my theories with facts, though, rather than by simnply issuing a blanket dismissal of anything that contradicts my view of the murders.
I thought a passage from the Crime Library's section on Chase which describes one of his murders might of some use here:
"Her sweater was pulled up over her breasts and her pants and underwear down around her ankles. Her knees were splayed open in the position of a sexual assault. Her left nipple was carved off, her torso cut open below the sternum, and her spleen and intestines pulled out. Chase had stabbed her repeatedly in the lung, liver, diaphragm, and left breast. He also had cut out her kidneys and severed her pancreas in two. He placed the kidneys together back inside her."
My, that sounds familiar! But the Ripper couldn't possibily have been the same type of killer, right? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 6:15 am: | |
perhaps we should not let who we think the killer is cloud our judgement of who JTR killed?
jennifer |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 153
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Hi Erin,
Besides the Crime Library's section on Chase I also read Garry Wroe’s “Jack the Ripper... Person or Persons Unknown?” in which a passage is devoted to Richard Chase, so perhaps you’re right in saying that I didn’t read anything in depth about him, I don’t know.
Perhaps I exaggerated a bit when I said that he didn't only talk like a 'lunatic', but also looked like one. However, I think that most of the time, especially at the time of his murders, he probably didn’t behave or talk as a normal person would, nor did he look normal. Nancy Holden, the woman who met Chase in the Town and Country Village shopping center, said Chase appeared to be confused and that he didn’t look anything like the Richard Chase she knew from high school. His agitated and confused behaviour combined with what he said made her so nervous that she hurried to her car and got away.
I do not entertain wild notions about Jack's identity, nor do I discard the possibility that he might have been mentally ill and I certainly don’t have a very narrow conception of what a mentally ill person looks like. I think such a person could look like anything. What I wrote had to do with Richard Chase, not with any other mentally ill person. I’m sure not each and every schizophrenically ill person looks as skinny and neglected as Chase did. I’m aware that mental illness is very complex and that no one person suffering from schizophrenia will be the same or act in the same way. There are mild forms of schizophrenia and extreme forms, and everything in between. With one the sufferer the psychosis takes only days or weeks, whereas with others it takes years. One constantly or only sometimes hears voices, whereas another’s sight or sense is distorted. It’s not simple.
I didn’t say anywhere in my post that the mutilations themselves aren’t similar to those Jack was responsible for, my point was and still is that Richard Chase did little to hide or destroy evidence. He killed during daylight, he left footprints and fingerprints, and had probably walked around in daylight with blood on his clothing. In other words, he gave little thought to the consequences. Jack, however, attacked and killed in all but one case during the night, he didn’t strike as soon as he was close enough to his victims, he didn’t get all covered in blood and he left the crime scenes without a trace – that is, as far as we can determine today.
I agree with you that he was the same type of killer, but it’s not the mutilations themselves that make me think that Jack was different than Richard Chase, it’s the facts and indications surrounding the murders of both men. As I said in my earlier post, I think it’s possible that Jack suffered from schizophrenia, but, based on the facts and indications surrounding the crimes, only a mild form and not the severe form Richard Chase seems to have been suffering from.
All the best,
Frank
|
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 197
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
Frank, I appear to have misunderstood your earlier posts because I quite agree with much of what you're saying. I don't believe that Jack was exactly like Chase, only that I think he was closer in the spectrum of "organized" and "disorganized" to Chase than to, say, Ted Bundy or John Gacy. Chase is an extreme example of the disorganized killer, just as Bundy is an extreme example of the organized killer. The nature of the mutilations, the ritualistic posing of the victims, the fact that little or no attempt was made to hide the bodies in any way--these things, to my mind at least, speak to a killer whose mental state is decidedly unbalanced. He needn't have looked as frightening as Chase, nor behaved in such an attention-provoking manner, but as you said before, mental illness manifests in many ways and some sufferers are better at controlling it than others. I do feel, however, that his illness would have been evident to his family and those who knew him well, and that they may have acted to shield him from police inquiry, taking care of him themselves while they could and instutionalizing him when his behavior grew too erratic for them to handle.
I must quibble with the idea that Jack "left the crime scenes without a trace," because we really can't know what sort of forensic evidence (if any) he left behind at the murder scenes, since such evidence would not have been noticed or preserved by police agencies. From my reading it appears they did very little to secure the scenes beyond posting officers as guards to prevent curious citizens from taking a peek. I don't seem to be as well-versed in the Chase case as you are, but I had thought that he wasn't apprehended based on that evidence but on the call from Nancy Holden. It was only after his psychiatric history was ascertained that the police attempted to tie him to the crime scenes. Would evidence such as footprints, if they existed, been of any use to Victorian detectives, who took a dim enough view of fingerprinting? The very fact that Jack knew enough to turn the heads of his victims to avoid getting blood on him is not necessarily an indication of his organizational skills; it could just as easily indicate that he had experience slaughtering animals. Besides, how much attention would a bloodstained man in Whitechapel, with its many slaughterhouses, have really attracted?
Yes, there are indeed differences between the two series, but the similarities between the crimes are simply too great to be dismissed. Jack needn't have been the stereotypical "raving lunatic" that Chase was, but his crimes could have been fueled by the same major mental illness that characterizes Chase's murders. I'm inclined to agree with MacNaghten here; I think he held it together for a while, probably better than Chase did, but that after the murder of Mary Kelly his fragile hold on sanity simply gave way.
Frank, I do appreciate your insight on the myriad manifestations of mental illness. I suppose I'm a bit more sensitive on the issue than most, since it appears so frequently in my own family, and is largely misunderstood by most people, if they think about it at all. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 744
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
I’m really enjoying this discussion.
It is important to note - perhaps even vital - that most witness description of Richard Chase at the time of his crimes was very similar, they all described Chase as having the appearance of someone who was on drugs, in particular his appearance was described as like a ‘pot-head’ etc.
In other words someone who had a bad habit perhaps but not a danger to them or others. It was assumed that his unkempt and somewhat wild appearance was a result of an over-indulgence in popular social drugs; nobody, and I mean nobody, suspected that he was killing and mutilating people, not even his own family who attributed his behaviour and appearance to drug abuse.
Obviously the doctors who carefully examined him were more clued in regarding his true mental state but they were largely ignored.
In our present day and age we all pass habitual and sometimes crazed users of illegal drugs and we think nothing of it, the situation was not so dissimilar in Chase’s time, but what we need to do is take that everyday situation back to 1888 and ask ourselves what type of drug abuse would have absolved a person from acting strangely in the LVP?
Alcohol? And here I think of the pure gin and absinthe that was easily obtainable at this time and in its essential raw form is stupendously damaging to the brain and motor responses; I also think of the early derivatives of the good old poppy and the massive effect it had at that time in the dockland areas of London where clubs and dens were commonplace for their use.
Just as now, such behaviour when associated with drug abuse would have been easily overlooked.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 8:11 pm: | |
Hi Erin, AP and Frank,
I am quite busy at the moment, but let me just pop in for a second and congratulate you all to some splendid posts.
I have personally absolutely nothing further to add at this point to what Erin's already said regarding the stereotypes and the complexities of disorganized killers. I couldn't agree more. This is music to my ears.
And it is indeed true, AP, that gin and absinthe in its purest form is extremely damaging to brain (not that I'm talking from own experiences, though...).
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 18, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 9:27 pm: | |
Hi, I always wonderd why people think that the ripper had to have known Kelly personally. I think Mary has become the Elvis,Monroe of rhe ripper case. Either people want to believe the killer was her boyfriends or someone she knew or she did not die at all. Why, why not someone chapman knew or any of the othe victims? Why do so many wish to center the case around Kelly? I am not suggesting they are wrong. I would just like to know why? I will give one example. What makes Joe Barnett a suspect other then the fact he was Kellys boyfriend? Another, What makes George Hutchinson a suspect other then the fact he claimed to have known Kelly? I have read that some people think that Mary Kelly's landlord may have been the ripper. I dont under stand why. I am not sugesting that any of thease theories are wrong. I just want to understand why so I can do better reasearch. One LAST THING ON Tumblety I promise I KNOW IT IS A BORE. I was reading some of the press reports and I came across some that were interesting. The Ottawa Free press November 19th 1888. The headline read " HAVE THEY GOT HIM NOW? A Doctor Arrested by Scotland Yard Detectives. His he the whitechaple fiend." It goes on to say that the Dr. arested "greatly resembles the "Gentleman" seen in the company of the latest victim on the morning of the murder." The Star november 19th 1888 conveys the same story. I feel the "Doctor" they must be refering to is tumblety. Could the witness that saw the "Doctor" be Hutchinson? The discription that Hutchinson gives of the man with the exception of height doese sort of bring to mind Dr. Tumblety or maybe some other witness I have not heard of. I have always thought that there was some reason that Tumblety was picked up. I mean the police dont just arrest people without reason. Now I know what you are thinking no way doese the discription that George gave match Tumblety! The man that George discribed was to young, to short and he did not have Tumblety's thick mustach! Doese anyone have a picture of Tumblety that was taken in the Autumn of 1888? I dont know how thick his mustach was. I will give you the height and age but perhapes the police thought that the discription was close enough to investigate Tumblety or perhapes there was some other witness. Maybe and undercover policeman. There is another Press report that I came acrossed fom the Port Phillp Herald Australia October 2 1889. The headline reads " THE HORRIBLE MURDERS WHITECHAPLE. A GREAT SENSATION. A CLUE TO THE MURDER DISCOVERD. SAID TO BE A LONDON MEDICAL MAN. HIS ARREST HOURLY EXPECTED. It goes on to say that the murders were commited for the purpose of collecting morbid specimens. Again I feel that this article can only refer to tumblety. Now I Know what you are thinking. They are just trying to sell papers! You are correct but they had to have got the story somehow and were there is smoke sometimes there is fire. Take care. Your friend always. CB  |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 12:10 am: | |
Hi Erin and Frank, I am not well versed on any other serial killers. I dont know why Jack holds my interest. Perhapes because he was never caught or perhapes because I like Sherlock Holmes and when I was a boy I saw the movie Murder By Decree or it could have been the in search of episode with Leonard Nimoy. That show kind of scared me wen I was young. I am from Florida so I have heard of Ted Bundy. I dont think Ted was organized. He used his own gas cards leaveing a paper trail. He struck often dureing the day in heavy populated spots such as malls and lakes. and he used his own name when meeting women and drove a highly visible car. I think that maybe Jack and ted had few things in common. I feel that when the urge to kill came over them they did. I feel that they both had a arrogance and believed that they could not be caught. I think that that it is apparent because they both took great risk. How many women did Bundy hit on that day at the lake useing his own name and leaveing alot of people who could identify Him. The fact that he dumed the bodies elsewere doese not take away from the fact that he took his women in broad daylight. I think that Teds last murder was alot like Jacks. He took great risk and broke into a sorority house and killed the women why they were sleeping. That to my knowledge was the first time Ted had done something like that. Just like the ripper with Mary Kelly. I think the ripper could have been a man like Bundy. Abel to pass in polite society but when the need to kill struck he did without much preperation. I think that one of the detectives said that talk was like sleep to Bundy. The more he talked the faster he could regain his sanity and rationalize what he had done. He may even have felt some remorse for killing right after the event. Ted Bundy asked one of the policeman that captured him to kill him. I feel the ripper and Bundy both were able to interact with society but when they lost controll they flipped out. They both probably saw them selves as a victim. Bundy claimed he was and probably actually believed it. Im not sure but socialpaths dont have a concience and can rationalize all they do? I dont think they kill themselves. Take care. CB |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
