|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 11:26 am: |       |
Hello All,
"Why should it be so difficult to grasp the idea that a prostitute could fall victim of a drunken and violent customer, going crazy with the knife?"
Glenn,
I disagree with you on this generally. But I would be interested to know if anyone has done research on the number of murders in Whitechapel that year, and also their circumstances. I would assume the vast majority of murders were committed with some clear motive.... ie. the result of a robbery, or domestic quarrel, street fight, etc.
In the context of your claim, we should be interested in murders that are apparently motiveless, or "passionate" so to speak, or those which are connected with rape or sexual assault, especially on prostitutes.
You say over and over that prostitutes lived in violent circumstances, and that attacks were common. Well, I am simply asking, are there any statistics to back this up?
I agree Whitechapel was a violent crime-ridden area, with probably a lot of robberies, prostitution, drunkenness, brawls etc. And yes, murders also. But even in this context,and at the time, the Tabram murder was regarded as exceptional for the degree of savagery and violence. The deputy coroner Collier called it "one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine", and it was enough to cause the citizenry to meet and form a vigilance committee to patrol the streets.
You said "The Ripper can hardly be considered being the only one capable of frenzied attacks" and also said "I am actually surprised that more events like this didn't take place. "
My argument here is that you seem to think that this type of vicious attack is common in high crime areas, and the simple truth is that it is not. I live in Boston, and I can tell you there is a good deal of violence here... killings, robberies, assault. But this type of frenzied motiveless attack is simply not common.
I would like to see any hard statistics on the number and type of murders in Whitechapel, if anyone has them.
Rob H
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1016
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
Robert,
I know that during the previous year (1887) there were no reported murders in that area at all. It obviously wasn't that common for people to just go crazy with a knife but that doesn't mean it was impossible.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to.  |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1565
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
You make all very good points here, and I can't say you're wrong. It is clearly shown from the papers and the police correspondence that the Tabram murder was considered as something else besides the ordinary. So that is a valid point indeed.
I don't think the statistics really support my opinions on the matter -- unfortunately. But just because the previous years don't show a murder rate of our interest here, doesen't mean that it can't explode during a certain year for no reason. It has happened before and it will continue to happen, coincidential or not. Coles and McKenzie -- and maybe even Mary Kelly -- may have been some sort of copy-cats influenced by the Ripper, but we also have Emma Smith, the torso and Whitehall murder etc. Apparently there was a significant murder rate in 1888, involving rather unusual murders, also without the Ripper.
That is a fact that must be considered, unless one wants to attribute all of them to the Ripper.
We must not forget that prostitutes did encounter -- and still do -- some of the strangest and lowest characters, and their line of occupation also makes them extremely vulnerable. Then add to it a poor and violent area, with a lot of alcoholism as a fuel for all sorts of crimes. I am actually more surprised that more similar events like this didn't happen in that particular area at the time -- over here murders like Tabram's, with no apparent motive except anger and drunkedness, was a common feature in the prostitution environment, I have come across a number of them in Scandinavia at the turn of the 19th century, far worse and even more crazied than those of Tabram.
Martha Tabram's injuries differs too much from the Ripper's method. I can't exclude her or Millwood with certainty from the line of Ripper victims, but Tabram doesen't seem right to me. This murderer used a totally different approach than the Ripper did, if we disregard the strangulation. And a different kind of knife. I prefer to remain doubtful about her inclusion.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
Not you too???? Are you starting to dismiss MJK as a ripper victim? AWE MAN! Have you been hanging out with those Barnettites? Haha.
You know Im just messing with you.
The killing itself is different from the others,
but, for me...its too much of a coincidence.
Im not too big on coincidences.
Rob- Good post, good points. I live in Birmingham, Al...which has a very high homicide rate, but, as you said....Nothing like the Tabram murder ever occurs. And it preceeding at least 4 others of similiar viciousness by a few weeks is a HUGE coincidence. Regards.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1573
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 8:37 pm: | |
Hey Paul,
"Not you too???? Are you starting to dismiss MJK as a ripper victim? AWE MAN!"
AWE MAN! I wouldn't be the first and I wouldn't be the last to do so. Still, I am not sure, but I consider it a strong possibility. Just for jolly, wouldn't you?
"Have you been hanging out with those Barnettites? Haha."
Oh boy! What do you think of me, buddy? 
There are limits...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 8:49 pm: | |
Glenn,
Whats with the bold highlights? Dan's not rubbing off on you is he? haha. Just not used to ya doing that....but anyway.
About MJK, I can see where Barnett would be a good suspect for killing her. But, I dont think he did. If we keep dismissing victims, there wont be a Jack the Ripper. Then we wouldnt have anything to discuss. This is a Tabram thread, so I better leave it alone. Talk to ya later.
Paul |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 14
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 10:27 pm: | |
Glenn wrote:
"Frenzied knife works are in this manner are not that uncommon and it really goes beyond me why such a high-populated but small area -- also quite violent and destitute -- should only harbour one killer, especially when the similarities between the murders are slim, to say the least."
We're going in circles. As already mentioned, I never said there was only one killer. In fact, I said just the opposite. As far as I've seen, nobody at all on these boards has ever said such a thing. You keep going off about someone claiming that there was only one killer. Who exactly are you arguing with?
It's like some bad Monty Python skit or something. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1575
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:25 am: | |
Hey Paul,
Those bold highlights is supposed to indicate quotes. However, I think Dan's method by using smaller type size is better, looks more like the real thing. Rats! Why didn't I think of that?
I'll try it next time.
Dan,
Never mind. You completely lost my point again. I can't bother going over it again; this is a waste of time.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 10:46 am: | |
Glenn,
As far as Frances Coles and Alice McKenzie... I do not exclude the possibility that these may have been ripper victims. Even Emma Smith and Ada Wilson.... there is a chance they were Ripper victims. My general belief is that the Ripper probably committed lesser crimes or "attempts" at murder, prior to the actual canonical murders. This is consistent with the evolutionary techniques of other serial killers (Bundy, DeSalvo, etc). The robbery pretext in the Ada Wilson attack, may have been mostly for some psychological reason to the attacker... sort of like an "opening line". The Ripper (if he was Ada Wilson's attacker), may have psychologically "used" the robbery concept as a pretext to justify, in his own mind, his real motivations, which were just purely violence.
In any case, I would assume there were attacks prior to the canonical 5. And Tabram, Wilson, and especially Annie Millwood are certainly possibilities in this area.
Emma Smith is more difficult to explain in this context, however it is possible that the Ripper was accompanied by other people in this early attack, perhaps thinking that his companions might share his willingness to commit extremely violent acts. It is not unheard of for serial killers to be able to influence others to commit violent acts like this. Then afterwards, perhaps, he simply decided to go alone. This of course is just a speculation. But again, the robbery pretext may apply here as well, especially as multiple attackers were involved.
As far as saying it is a "strong possibility" that Kelly is not a Ripper victim, I think this is just absurd. I do not even consider it a remote possibility.
Rob H |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
Rob,
Nothing is absurd in the Ripper case, except maybe for some occasional and very extreme suspect theories.
I agree, Frances Coles and Alice MacKenzie can not be totally excluded. But personally I don't think they were Ripper victims, at least not Frances Coles.
We can only be absolutely sure about three Ripper victims; Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, considering the forensic evidence. The others, I feel, are up to debate. Call me a purist, I don't mind.
Yes, I do think there is a very strong possibility that Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim, even though she still might have been in the end. The problem with Kelly is that she has been generally accepted for over hundred years as a canonical one, regardless of what the evidence say, and to think in other directions is not easy on such ground. But I think that would be a wise thing to do. Again, I am certainly not the first put forward such a suggestion.
It is absolutely true that the attack on Ada Wilson may have been a premature attempt. I have no objection to the rather logical theory of the Ripper as an evolutionary killer; I have myself for quite a long time put forward this opinion. But he doesen't have to be. The attack on Ada wilson is really no extraordinary event, and it could really have been performed by anyone. She is a perfect example of what I've stated earlier, namely that people want to see Ripper victims in every corner, which is just ridiculous, in an inhabited area of poverty and crime. It could have been the Ripper in an early stage, but then again, it may not have been.
What bothers me is that people are too stuck in their perceptions without even considering other options, even when facts may force us to do so.
Emma Smith is just the most corny example. She was attacked by a gang -- according to herself -- and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to consider her in the Ripper context -- to even think about including her is to draw the whole thing too far and totally disregard the facts. Be open to other possibilities -- yes, but there are limits.
I don't believe for a minute that the Ripper was part of a gang in the beginning; these type of offenders are generally lone killers. So this is another one of these far-stretched theories, I'd love to throw in the bin.
Tabram and Annie Millwood are of course possible candidates -- no question about it -- but personally I think there are signs pointing in other directions. Ada Wilson I really see no reason to include, though, to be honest. And Emma Smith is definitively out.
What I find problematic with the notion of Jack as an evolutionary murderer -- seen in the context of the women discussed here -- is that these MO changes generally evolves over a longer period of time. However, this notion is on the other hand based on the serial killers that are caught and studied, so this is very much a blank canvas. Still, that is what I feel about it.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:18 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
You dont have to use the quotes with me, man.
I know what you refer to when you comment on my posts. Its all good. I gotta go back to work.
Later.
Paul |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:21 pm: | |
Glenn,
I do not really think we are talking about evolving MO, we are more talking about a killer gradually overcoming the severe psychological resistance to killing. Bundy spoke of this in interviews. For example he said he had a vague sense that he wanted to attack someone. He went up behind a girl walking up to her door and hit her with a board then ran away. Not long after this he "went all the way" so to speak and started actually killing.
Profiling of the Ripper has indicated that the series was likely preceded by other lesser crimes. This is not an example of "people want(ing) to see Ripper victims in every corner", it is just logic, based on profiling and case studies.
And incidentally, you want to see the Ripper nowhere... your list is down to what?... 3 victims now? Based on minor discrepencies between the murders... it's ridiculous. I think you can also eliminate Chapman because the other 2 were killed in the street, while she was killed in a backyard.
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1581
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
No, Rob.
I won't eliminate Chapman. Not for anything in the world.
Actually, I am not prepared to totally eliminate anyone -- that is once again a misconception. I have argued, that looking strictly at the discrepancies in MO, we can only be sure of three victims. That doesen't mean the others can't be Ripper victims for other reasons.
But I think it is an important thing to consider and be open-minded about. If you are sure about things, good for you. I'm not.
The fact that we seem to have different opinions about what is "minor" discrepancies, is another matter...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 20, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Glenn (et al)
Here is a link to an interview of Ted Bundy speaking of how he gradually overcame his "resistance" of the urge to kill:
http://www.roberthouse.com/bundy.html
This evolution took place over a period of months leading up to the time he started to kill.
He speaks of a period of remorse and regret which followed each one of these acts of violence, but these feelings gradually faded, allowing him to attack again, and if fact to increase the level of violence with each attack. He refers to this as "regeneration". This does not, in my opinion, have much to do with MO, it has more to do with a rapid evolution of technique... a learning period, a period of self-discovery.
This at least gives some insight into the thought processes of a predatory sexual killer.
RH |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 688
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
This is where I am at the moment Robert.It is what I have been trying to express on another thread actually.I think the ripper may have gradually "evolved" his technique with each attack/killing.And this seems to have happened with Bundy by his own account.Thanks for putting it so well1
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 689
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
This is where I am at the moment Robert.It is what I have been trying to express on another thread actually.I think the ripper may have gradually "evolved" his technique with each attack/killing.And this seems to have happened with Bundy by his own account.Thanks for putting it so well1
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1585
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
Rob,
Thank you for the interesting text, by the way.
I know very well what Bundy means and we can see the same thing in a lot of killers. But one thing we've got to remember - and since you're referring to profiling - not all killers are alike. Just because Bundy evolved in this way doesen't mean that every other killer functions the same way, and not necessarily Jack the Ripper. This was true for Bundy (hopefully - there are actually suspicions about that he pulled the interviewer's legs a bit just because he enjoyed the situation, so I don't think we should automatically take his word for it... remember, he was a manipulative guy), but not necessarily for Jack, although some details - like the evolving need to mutilate the face (Eddowes) could point at it.
But apart from that, we simply just don't know. The "evolving killer" is more or less an accepted view on Jack the Ripper - that doesen't mean it has to be true, although I can't rule it out.
But I prefer not to let a cunning psychopath like Bundy (especially in his own words) act as model for a behaviour of other serial killers; there are some interesting traits we can see in many of them, but besides that they are all individuals. And those traits are based on those we know of and those that have been captured; we have no idea how the others work.
There is no reason to assume that Jack the Ripper should follow a certain theoretical pattern, and there are no easy answers here.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 20, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 7:17 pm: | |
Glenn,
I am not saying that Jack the Ripper was like Bundy in the sense that he was cunning and manipulative.
However, I am saying that these are the type of psychological underpinnings that could explain the evolution of technique... the evolution of technique goes hand in hand with the evolution in the "thinking" of a serial killer. This general concept could serve to be instructive in cases like Tabram, Milwood, Ada Wilson etc, in explaining the differences in technique between these and the canonical murders.
Do you accept the argument that the Ripper likely committed rather serious, even bizarre crimes previous to the canonical murders?
If you do, then these early attacks are the ones we should be examining. I am not trying to find Ripper victims everywhere, but I am guessing that there were earlier attacks. So where are they? In my opinion, this is a pretty significant argument for inclusion of Tabram in the series.
Rob H |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1587
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 11:32 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
My point wasn't that Jack wasn't like Bundy in particular, but I rather addressed the problem with sticking to general rules - it doesen't matter if this is based on information from Bundy; it could just as well be from any other serial killer. I just wanted to state, that I wonder how much we can trust Bundy in his attempts of seeking attention.
quote:... the evolution of technique goes hand in hand with the evolution in the "thinking" of a serial killer. This general concept could serve to be instructive in cases like Tabram, Milwood, Ada Wilson etc, in explaining the differences in technique between these and the canonical murders.
Yes, but then you are relying on those general rules as they were stated facts. I don't believe there are such general rules. Are you really sure there are such a "general concept" we can apply on all serial killers - or at least most of them? I wonder.
quote:Do you accept the argument that the Ripper likely committed rather serious, even bizarre crimes previous to the canonical murders?
Yes, I can accept it. I have done so in the past and I still have no problem with that. I think it's very likely. Still, we can't be completely sure that really is the case.
When I think of earlier crimes, I am more entitled to acknowledge crimes of completely different nature, like arson, threats, indecent behaviour etc. That is very much a common thread regarding most serial killers, especially those of psychopatic character.
Regarding how such an individual starts and develops his murder skills, is somewhat harder to pin down. In the Ripper's early crimes, I would expect to see the traces of the most important traits in his MO and signature. Regarding the MO, I think the throat-cutting is crucial; I don't necessarily expect to see full mutilation on an early stage, but it disturbs me that Tabram's throat wasn't cut, since that is the red line that follows all of the Ripper killings. I can appreciate the significance in that she was strangled though, which also seems like a part of his general MO, but strangulation is on the other hand such an incredibly common method of killing (regardless if it's followed by knife-work or not), so to me that indicates nothing.
Furthermore, if we look at the three real canonical victims (considering the MO and signature), the only real evolutionary sign is the cuts in Eddowes' face. Besides that, there really aren't that strong progressiveness between those three. Regarding the fact that Nichols "only" was ripped up and her intestines slightly protruding, there are credible indications on that the murderer actually was disturbed and didn't managed to complete the mutilations -- this has been put forward by several authors and is no news flash. I strongly believe that if he hadn't heard the first witness arrive (or hadn't been scared off by anything else), Nichols would have looked the same as Chapman. So I think it would be a mistake to see the less ripped elements on her body as a sign of his "first careful mutilation attempt", as some have done.
Considering Nichols, I think the differences between her and Tabram and the jump in mutilation method are too distinct. To me it just doesen't feel right. Stabbing is something completely different, and the time frame between these two murders aren't that long. I think it's too big a jump in method and approach.
But, who knows?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 5:52 am: | |
Hi Rob
Actually, he may have robbed even the canonical victims - they had no money when found. In some cases this may be because they _had_ no money, but others - MJK for example, maybe Stride, maybe others - should have had some money on them, even if JtR's technique did not involve posing as a client. MJK had had earlier tricks that evening, for example.
Regards
Pete |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:14 am: | |
Pete,
Good point.
Glenn,
OK first off, the definition of the word "Canonical" in this context is "generally accepted as a rule" or in this context it would be the victims who have been generally accepted by most historians and scholars of the case. So your "three real canonical victims" is incorrect usage of the word, and in fact is indicative of your tendency to present your personal opinions as if they were fact.
Secondly, it is not likely that Bundy was bragging or being deceitful to a large extent in this interview. In fact, his earlier attacks and criminal activity has been well documented in police records.
I really think you are way too stuck on this idea that all the murders have to be practically identical in nature. You are putting way to much weight on this aspect of your theory... which is now leaning towards 3 victims. I mean do you really think that the Ripper just suddenly emerged as a killer with a fully mature and realized MO. When you speak of earlier crimes such as arson... yes OK, I agree. He probably had an earlier history of lesser crimes like this. Especially when he was younger. But I am speaking of a time period that was immediately precedent to the canonical "FIVE" murders. I admit that I do not have much information to back up my theory, but I imagine that a killer's technique would evolve in its early stages. The above Bundy interview is one example. DeSalvo is another example... prior to committing murders, he also did numerous sexual assaults and attacks, often involving coersion at knife point, and entry by lying and manipulation.
If anyone has any specific information of other killers whose early techniques evolved as I have proposed, I would be interested to hear about it. Otherwise, Glenn what specific data do you have to back up your assertions on this matter?
RH |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 212
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
Seems to me I went over this before, but Glenn is right -- the throat cutting is crucial to any consideration of JtR. Stabbing or slashing with a knife is instinctual, but a deliberate cutting of the throat in order to sever the carotid is a learned technique. If JtR didn't pick this up somewhere else, then I would think some time before the murders there were cats or dogs found in Whitechapel with their throats cut.
To the Freudians in the audience I leave the possible sexual overtones of the spurting blood from a severed carotid artery.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1594
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:03 pm: | |
Donald,
You always manages to make a lot of sense with relatively few words. Understandably, I agree and thanks for the support.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
Donald,
Your post makes no sense to me at all. What do you mean by "learned". With the exception of the attacking dogs idea, which sounds to me to be a bit far fetched, where would someone learn to slice throats? Don't you think he could have learned this technique just by doing it?
I take it that you also do not believe Tabram was a JTR victim?
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1595
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
Rob,
Swell!
If anyone here continues to imply that I state my personal opinions as facts - in spite of my efforts to time and time again try and put forward different alternatives and doubts in several directions (also my own) - I'll come over and smack you in the head with it! I'm up to here with that stupid, unintelligent comment! I am fed up with it - I really thought we would have passed that point.
OK, if commenting on the usage of words is the best you can do, here it is: when I referred to "three canonical victims", I meant the three victims we with complete certainty generally can accept as genuine Ripper victims considering the MO. That's all! I am sorry if I confused you. Evans and Gainey, to name a few, is of the same opinion, for what it's worth.
But I also wrote the following lines in an earlier post: "I am not prepared to totally eliminate anyone -- that is once again a misconception. I have argued, that looking strictly at the discrepancies in MO, we can only be sure of three victims. That doesen't mean the others can't be Ripper victims for other reasons", implying that nothing is self-written here; my argument is solely based on the MO, that doesen't say that they can't be Ripper victims anyway if we consider other factors. I just wanted to put that idea forward, and I am not the first. Note also that I admitted that the strangulation was a problem for my points of view on the matter.
Why do you so conveniently choose to disregard those lines?
If anyone here is stuck in his thinking, it's those who seem terribly sure of the truth in what they put forward, and who never questions the general accepted views on the case. Like when you insists on giving me "some insight into the thought processes of a predatory sexual killer" - I thank you for the info, but I don't think you hold all the cards here, nor do the profilers.
You said: "But I am speaking of a time period that was immediately precedent to the canonical "FIVE" murders."
Yeah, and I mentioned that as well, and I said I personally found the time span between Tabram's and Nichol's murder too short for such a change in the important parts of the MO. That is my interpretation of the same thing, not a stated fact, and it differs from yours. Big deal.
To claim that killers follow a general rule of behaviour is to construct rules for and assume things about killers we don't know anything about and who hasn't been captured. That is completely illogical.
To assume that most killers work along theoretical, ready-made rules is the work of armchair detectives and academics. Fine with me, but I can't go along with it. I wouldn't base my theorizing on such ground, but would instead prefer to solely look at the crime scene evidence. Besides that, I think there are good points for both inclusion and exclusion of the victims we've discussed here. What my personal hunches tell me when I interpret those crime scene facts, is another matter and certainly not necessarily the truth. But at least I try to keep an open mind and don't lean upon generally accepted theoretical conceptions.
All the best
P.S. I didn't know that it suddenly was proven beyond doubt that DeSalvo actually was The Boston Strangler - as far as I know that is still under debate, although he was considered guilty and put away at the time.
(Message edited by Glenna on April 21, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz 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.
|
|
|
|
