|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 216
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 8:23 pm: |       |
Dan,
You might be right. But, I would be very surprised if it turns out Jack suddenly "discovered" the cooly efficient way to dispatch his victims that was demonstrated with Polly Nicholls et seq. He did it quickly and quietly and he didn't have SAS training manuals to help him.
As far as our being guided by other serial killers, while again hardly conversant with the literature, I have always believed that they are to a great extent sui generis.
Of course, if Martha Tabram were found to be a Ripper victim, it might lend some credence to the "39 Steps to Total Depravity Program." For that reason alone I would favor excluding Tabram from the canon.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1615
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 8:23 pm: | |
Dan,
Naturally you couldn't resist finishing off your post in your usual manner (ingredients in my posts mentioning lies, criminal etc. are all answers to personal attacks and insinuations and repetitious claims that the writer is dishonest or subjective, not answers to the opponent's opinions, - and this you know very well, although you always try to turn it into something else). Now, can we lay off that personal stuff?
Besides that, I am going to be fair (although you seldom have the ability to appreciate it) and say that I agree with most of what you say here. I really can see no evident reason to state anything else than that your views here are quite valid. I may have different views and interpretations on some points, that I don't think you necessarily is wrong in any way. We are talking different interpretations here.
Personally I don't think the throat cuts were the important part of the signature, that is, the part that gained him the satisfaction - that would in my view be the postmortem mutilations.
However (dare I say this without being decapitated?), the thing about the throat cuts is that we see it in three victims that are considered genuine Ripper victims - possibly four if we consider Kelly (note that I don't count Stride in this context) - in murders that were performed after one another. So suddenly we - prior to those in a relatively short amount of time - has a murder where such a detail is missing, as well as a lack of the mutilation we see in the others.
Sure, I can consider the possibility that Tabram happened to be the missing link and Nichols being the first victim where the throat cutting was used as an important part of the actual killing of the victim. Then, he at the same time also decides to abandon the stabbing (which is in Tabram's case not only directed to the abdominal area, but also to the chest area, something we don't see in the other Ripper victims, besides Kelly) and turn to mutilation. That's quite OK; it is by no means impossible.
I can accept that a murderer changes his MO, but I also ask myself the following question: why these discrepancies on several points between Tabram and the three other victims, that were killed with another MO and another signature, after one another and all three in a nearly identical manner? The only real evidence of an evolutional trait in those are the cuts in Eddowes' face; besides that, the rest looks like a rather learnt behaviour on the killer's part since it is repeated. Could it derive from the fact that he finally was satisfied with his method, a method that wasn't developed at the time of the Tabram murder? Maybe. I don't think so myself, but I can't totally exclude it.
By that, I am not saying that the Ripper didn't commit other crimes prior to Nichols or Tabram - he probably did. But does it necessarily have to be just Tabram or Millwood? Well, maybe, maybe not. I can't rule out that there were other killers in Whitechapel in 1888 either; the discrepancies between Tabram and the others may perfectly well be a result of a sudden change in both MO and signature - both postmortem mutilation and stabbing are examples of signature of a lust murderer - but I am not totally convinced. Just my opinion.
Regarding Stride, I agree with everything you say, and I also agree on that there are more evident reasons to acknowledge Tabram as a much better Ripper candidate than Stride - especially on those grounds you put forward. So those are great points.
Now, before I'll elaborate any further I'll continue to finish the articles provided by Rob - I am not quite done with them yet.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Whats up Guys?
Why dont you guys just take it out in the backyard...Ive got some boxing gloves you can borrow. I couldnt resist that, sorry.
Not to take sides or anything like that, but,
I just had a thought. Has anyone ever tried to stab "something" 39 times? as hard as you can?
It seems to me, with that bloody knife, you are gonna cut the piss out of your hand with the blade. Trying to stay as neutral as possible, The killer might have done Tabram, and decided that the stabbing method was not gonna work.
Now I am by no means saying that this is what happened, its just a possibility. And Im not saying that Jack the Ripper killed Martha Tabram, Im just saying that "IF" he did, that
theory "could have" played a role in the change of MO. Ok, now that I have said that....
I'll get out of here, before someone hits me.
Glenn, Whats up man? I dont have any problem understanding what you mean in your posts. I just wanted you to know that.
Regards,
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1617
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:26 pm: | |
Hey Paul! Always nice to hear from you.
What's up, man? Yeah, it's wild stuff going on here. Still, I think there are several attempts here to try and keep things to the subject as well.
Admit it was tempting for you to use that clip-art.. 
Regarding you're points. Don't worry, bro. I hear what you say, and I think what you suggest absolutely might be possible - I have never excluded that possibility. It's just that I want to examine other options as well.
No, no one'll hit you. If I have survived so far, you can...
No, I haven't try to stab someone 39 times; I bet I would be using the prison computer right now if that was the case.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 22, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:58 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
Notice I said "Something", not "Someone"....because I would certainly not want anyone to reply yes to the someone part.
Anyway...Im not worried about getting hit, I was just not wanting to butt in on an argument that
I was not involved in. And, Yes...that was the
PERFECT opportunity to use the clipart. Later.
Paul |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 29
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 4:40 am: | |
Donald,
"But, I would be very surprised if it turns out Jack suddenly "discovered" the cooly efficient way to dispatch his victims that was demonstrated with Polly Nicholls et seq."
That's my point. If we assume that Nichols was the first one, he's going from nothing straight to perhaps the single most efficient way to off someone silently (well, assuming that he doesn't have a slaughterhouse background). You can't get more sudden than that... and people then say that a small jump in killing method is sudden? How is moving from most of the way there to there more sudden then nowhere to there?
What the evolving killer theory proposes is steps. It could be knife attack, then strangle with a knife attack later, then strangle and bleed out and knife attack. To get to the kind of level seen on Nichols takes practice, it's all a matter of where the practice came from. It could have been professional on animals on it could have been as he went on humans, like a lot of serial killers do.
Glenn,
"Now, can we lay off that personal stuff?"
Yes, we can. You can start by apologizing for calling people criminals, liars and stupid.
"Besides that, I am going to be fair (although you seldom have the ability to appreciate it)"
LOL. And this is your example of laying off the personal attacks? You're funny, unintentionally no doubt.
"why these discrepancies on several points between Tabram and the three other victims, that were killed with another MO and another signature, after one another and all three in a nearly identical manner?"
As far as the silent kill goes, just like the Green River Killer said, once you have a method that works, you don't have to change it.
But I would disagree with you that they are nearly identical, as there are major differences, but with a logical progression.
"The only real evidence of an evolutional trait in those are the cuts in Eddowes' face"
You miss the most blatantly obvious one: that each killing (barring Stride) goes farther and farther into the body cavity and removes more and more organs, some of which go missing.
"the discrepancies between Tabram and the others may perfectly well be a result of a sudden change in both MO and signature"
Another person on the "sudden" thing... The MO is almost exactly the same already anyway, just different knife wounds, and that's something that could change anytime really easily.
Peter,
"Isn't this debate the main reason _why_ modern investigators exclude Tabram?"
It's why some modern investigators exclude Tabram. But then the same logic is used to exclude lots of cases from modern serial killers, only to find that their counts were usually off by a significant amount once the killer is count and interviewed. And that's just counting ones that the police can then go and confirm, not the numbers from the people who like to try to take credit for all open cases everywhere.
"There is a pause of over three weeks between Tabram and Nicholls - is that long enogh to develop the technique a bit if something went wrong (from JtR's viewpoint) with Tabram?"
If he wanted to make sure the victim was really dead (if Tabram may have partially revived) or to control the blood splash (if he was conspicuously covered) or watch a more dramatic blood fountain (because they were exciting, but not enough), once he had firmly identified the issue I would think even three days would be more than enough to take the extra step to slicing the throat. Heck, he may have asked a butcher. It's a fairly simple thing, but not one someone who hadn't identified that particular problem (assuming one of the ones mentioned) before would think of.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 711
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 5:18 am: | |
I hope I am not wrong here but one reason Machnaghten may have excluded Martha tabram could have been that as he was trying to exonerate Thomas Cutbush in the memorandum the mention of her didnt sit happily with Supt Charles Cutbush carrying out the investigation into her murder!!!
Natalie |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 554
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 5:20 am: | |
Brad
First off, the Zodiac was a very different breed of killer. He did change his MO between stabbing and shooting, but in his case the letters and messages he left were more important than the killings themselves, he got off on the sense of terror he was creating in the community.
However I should also correct you on a few things. The Zodiac only ever shot two of his victims from behind. Paul Lee Stine was a cab driver and as the Zodiac was sitting in the back seat of the cab at the time of the attack this was the obvious angle to shoot from. Betty Lou Faraday was shot several times in the back but was running away from him at the time so it's difficult to see what other angle he could have shot her from
There was no Zodiac victim accosted in a park and stabbed 100 times. The closest would be Cecilia Ann Shepard who was stabbed several times, though nowhere near 100, on the banks of Lake Berryessa together with her college friend Bryan Hartnell who survived the attack.
I am assuming here that you are referring to the Zodiac and not some other killer as you call him the NYC Zodiac, but the Zodiac's killings were all in the area around San Francisco. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
Hi Dan,
I am glad you at least think I'm funny.
That'll have to do, I guess.
quote:But I would disagree with you that they are nearly identical, as there are major differences, but with a logical progression. [...] You miss the most blatantly obvious one: that each killing (barring Stride) goes farther and farther into the body cavity and removes more and more organs, some of which go missing.
If you, for example are referring to the differences we see between Nichols and the two following, it has been somewhat mentions as a credible possibility by some authors, that the more careful and first-stage look of the mutilation on Nichols, with the intestines only protruding and nothing being taken out, is a result of that the murderer may have been interrupted ny the first witness (due to the notion at the tome, that death had just recently occurred). I can't say if they are right in their estimations, I am just pointing it out. If that should be true, then that part of the progressive theory falls to pieces like a deck of cards, since it would be reasonable to assume that she - for all we know - could have ended up like Chapman, if was allowed to continue.
However, regarding the others: I can agree on that the facial marks in Eddowes' face clearly indicates a progressive stage in the mutilation, taken one step further. Apart from that, her body wounds are quite similar to those of Chapman, likewise the signature involving the intestines. So if we accept (as an option, not as a stated fact, by all means) that the Ripper was interrupted in Nichol's case, and the development regarding the facial marks on Eddowes, we see quite strong similarities and a nearly identical signature. As you yourself imply, steps of some sort of evolutionary traits must be expected anyway and is only natural.
quote:The MO is almost exactly the same already anyway, just different knife wounds, and that's something that could change anytime really easily.
Yes, but here the MO wasn't the same since her throat wasn't cut. Then, it is of course a matter of opinion if that is significant or not. I think it is, since we see it in the other victims, but that's just me.
quote:But then the same logic is used to exclude lots of cases from modern serial killers, only to find that their counts were usually off by a significant amount once the killer is count and interviewed. And that's just counting ones that the police can then go and confirm, not the numbers from the people who like to try to take credit for all open cases everywhere.
And still crime literature is littered with serial killing cases where we "only" have three or four victims if we don't count several copy-cats, and where other similar victims had to be excluded.
Let me get this straight, if we should follow your reasoning that it would be illogical to exclude victims like Tabram (for example, by it's brutal and extraordinary traits of overkill), then does that mean that the murders of quite brutal and special character (with dismembered bodies) like the Whitehall incident and the Pinchin Street torso in 1889 also is supposed to be the Ripper's work? because that is what such assesments would imply in the long run. They were also mutilated, in fact the dismembering could be an even further stage on the progressive method of overkill. Just checking.
quote:That's my point. If we assume that Nichols was the first one, he's going from nothing straight to perhaps the single most efficient way to off someone silently...
And still - again - we can find a vast number of examples where murderers have started mutilating out of the blue, regardless if it's serial killers or domestic murderers - unless they haven't committed earlier crimes that we don't know about. We can't make such assumptions as if they were facts and expect every killer to act or function alike. The progression theory is a logical one, but we also have examples of where this doesen't necessarily apply. I can't say that it's a wrong deduction, beacuse it isn't, but I fail to see why we should take it for granted in our conclusions.
From your earlier post:
quote:So once you are open to the possibilities (and, from other serial killer cases the high probability) that there were more Ripper victims, you have to look for ones that might fit.
I have done so in the past so that possibility - which really is far from provocative, since it is rather accepted - I considered a long time ago. Those points are hardly news to me, in fact I used to totally support them. Now I am looking at it from another direction. That is being open-minded.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
brad kelley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 9:01 am: | |
Alan NYC zodiac was big news in these parts about 20 years ago, left cryptic messages for the police saying he would shoot 1 person for every astrological sign or something nutty like that, sent taunting letters to the police, nothing to do with the better known san fran zodiac though i beleive it was put forth as possible for a time that the san fran guy was out of retirement and in nyc. thanks. |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 30
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 1:35 am: | |
Glenn,
"she - for all we know - could have ended up like Chapman, if was allowed to continue."
That's a pretty big if. But then we still have increasing mutilations and the killer going deeper and deeper into the victim's body cavity from Chapman to Eddowes to Kelly. Coming up with an excuse for why Nichols may not be mutilated as bad as the others doesn't change the overall progression.
If we are playing the game of what if, you might say that Jack was interrupted with Nichols and that she would have looked like Chapman if he hadn't been interrupted. But even if we play devil's advocate and assume he was interrupted, there are other scenarios that are just as probable. Nichols could have ended up more mutilated than she was but still not comparable to Chapman. Or Nichols would have ended up looking like Chapman but then Jack could have pushed for even more with Chapman to exceed his previous success and maybe she ends up with facial mutilations or a kidney missing. Both of those scenarios make just as much sense as the idea that Nichols would have looked like Chapman, and they fit the evidence better.
Yes, but here the MO wasn't the same since her throat wasn't cut."
You'll note that I said almost the same, not the same. This is going in circles again. You are hung up on just that one thing, I look at the whole scene.
"if we should follow your reasoning that it would be illogical to exclude victims like Tabram (for example, by it's brutal and extraordinary traits of overkill)"
I am concentrating on the whole crime: victim's occupation, location, date in comparison to other victims, time, weekend, strangulation, pose of body, clothing rearranged, torso targeted and so forth and so on.
"then does that mean that the murders of quite brutal and special character (with dismembered bodies) like the Whitehall incident and the Pinchin Street torso in 1889 also is supposed to be the Ripper's work?"
I think it's within the realm of possibility that they might be, but they don't meet a lot of the other criteria that Tabram meets. They form a group, and one that doesn't fit with the dates of the other victims well, for it would imply a change of MO and then a change back and then yet another switch. There's no logical progression there, the location isn't the same, the bodies were hidden when the canonical Ripper victims were not, the dates don't fit all that well, and so forth and so on.
"because that is what such assesments would imply in the long run."
Not at all. As I've said over and over on this thread, there are a whole set of criteria that needs to be looked at in order to try to determine if someone was a Ripper victim or not. You seem to want to boil it all down to just one aspect, maybe two if you feel particularly open minded, and then ignore everything else.
Those points are hardly news to me, in fact I used to totally support them. Now I am looking at it from another direction. That is being open-minded.
Not any more open minded than anyone else who has looked at both sides and sees compelling evidence to support their viewpoint.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1628
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 3:01 am: | |
Dan,
OK. Now I think we're getting somewhere.
Well ... a pretty big if... Could be, but I am not so sure; I see what you mean, though, and I knew you were going to say that, but as I said, the idea about Nichol's murderer being interrupted is certainly not my invention (although the fact that a couple of authors have suggested it doesen't necessarily means that it's true). Evidence suggested that her body may have been discovered just a couple of minutes or maybe even seconds within her death, even more closely than in the case of Eddowes, so it's not without bearing. We don't have those circumstances with Chapman.
It may not be proven, but at least it is enough to challenge the idea of the first stage in the mutilation process and to make it less certain as a fact. However, as I said, the cuts in Eddowes' face does indicate some evolving traits and I would expect to see some of that anyway but that would only prove a progression directed to the face itself.
I think it's within the realm of possibility that they might be, but they don't meet a lot of the other criteria that Tabram meets.
They form a group ... Well, Tabram and Millwood may possibly also form a group of similar traits, wouldn't they? But anyway, I agree. Those switches considering the dates looks unlikely. I just wanted to check your reasoning. But at least it indicates that there were more killers around in the area at the same time, and therefore it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that there was yet another one, even if Tabram and Millwood may fit some of the Ripper characteristics (which I don't really think they do that much anyway). That possibility can never ever be totally excluded, no matter how sure you seem to be of the opposite.
You'll note that I said almost the same, not the same. This is going in circles again.
You are hung up on just that one thing, I look at the whole scene. Oh yes, I forgot... semantics... No, I'm not. I have explained earlier why I think the strangulation, location, the weekend dates and the victims' occupation is less surprising in my view, considering these types of crimes, and not enough to link it with one specific killer. However, the missing throat cut is an important detail in the modus operandi that I think outranks some of the other parameters, also the random stabbing in contrast to the more deliberate mutilation in the other cases.
Where you see the first stages in a serial killer's process in the evidence, I see a rather different personality type. But I guess it's a matter of interpretation here.
As I've said over and over on this thread, there are a whole set of criteria that needs to be looked at in order to try to determine
if someone was a Ripper victim or not. You seem to want to boil it all down to just one aspect, maybe two if you feel particularly open minded,
and then ignore everything else. No I don't, but it doesen't matter how many aspects you look at, if you attempt to interpret most of them in a certain direction. I look at the same criterias as you do, but I interpret them differently - in the end, and in contrast to you, I don't see enough convincing patterns to link either Tabram and Millwood to the Ripper. That doesen't mean that they wasn't, but the evidence isn't strong enough in my view.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 8:37 am: | |
Dan,
Your last post was well written and I agree with it almost entirely. Kudos.
But let me just ask you to clarify, because I am trying to see if you agree with my general concept here. Are you suggesting that Tabram, and also possibly Millwood and others fit within what you see as an escalation of violence in the series, what I called an evolution of technique in my earlier post?
The reason I am asking for clarification is because I do not know very much about "serial killer theory" as regards consistency vs. evolution of technique. I realize that many people here do not give much credit to profiling, but I believe that some of it (maybe a good deal of it) is valid. I assume there are other examples of cases that support this idea?
Rob H |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 31
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 9:21 pm: | |
Glenn,
"It may not be proven, but at least it is enough to challenge the idea of the first stage in the mutilation process and to make it less certain as a fact."
I don't see it being a particularly strong challenge, as there's still a very clear progression even if you totally remove Nichols.
"Well, Tabram and Millwood may possibly also form a group of similar traits, wouldn't they?"
Possibly, perhaps even probably. But of course if they do form a group they could still fit into the Ripper series, as they happen before the canonicals and not during, like the torsos.
"That possibility can never ever be totally excluded, no matter how sure you seem to be of the opposite."
I'm mentioning it as a possibility, mainly to contrast it with how sure you seem to be that Tabram is totally insignificant.
"You'll note that I said almost the same, not the same."
"Oh yes, I forgot... semantics..."
Well, it's the difference between what I said and the things I didn't say that you choose to argue against instead.
"also the random stabbing in contrast to the more deliberate mutilation in the other cases."
I'm not seeing things as being all that deliberate in the other cases, except, again, as a progression.
"No I don't, but it doesen't matter how many aspects you look at, if you attempt to interpret most of them in a certain direction."
I am not attempting to interpret them in a certain direction. Still stuck in the mindset that only you are open minded, eh? Oh well.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 32
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 11:05 pm: | |
Robert,
I support the idea of profiling, but I think it's still an evolving science. Profilers have had some very well publicized major mistakes, and I think the approach and the datasets they are using both need to be improved.
To clarify, what I suggest is that Tabram (and possibly Millwood and others) might be consistent with a serial killer who hasn't perfected his particular game plan yet (and, with later possibilities, a game plan that may have changed or been a one off experiment).
I don't know of any reference that spells out all the various ways killers can change how they do things, but simply going through cases of those who have been caught and studied finds all sorts of examples.
I wish I had a good reference to show you that focuses on this aspect, but I don't know of any, I've just picked it up reading about other cases. If I can't find a book or article about these issues from someone with more credentials maybe I'll try to tackle it someday.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1642
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 8:00 am: | |
I would say, if a book would contain such information, it would be the one mentioned above, namely Geberth's book. I looked it through in London, had just a quick glance, and it was incredible; nearly a thousand pages and most of the cases richly illustrated with rather gruesome, authentic pictures of the murder victims.
It has a large profiling section as well, but since it is used in police education (even in the FBI, I think), I consider it to be a more reliable and less theoretical and commercial source than the books produced by Douglas, Hazelwood etc.
However, there are two separate editions; one thin textbook manual and then the large book I refer to; they are named almost exactly the same.
So if one wants to find examples of all kinds of cases, and find supports of certain patterns from authentic case studies, that one would be it, I suppose. It is probably the best reference work I've seen so far.
It is quite expensive, though.
Besides that, I have no valuable tip to give.
I am not totally against profiling, but I'd say it needs to be developed in order to be regarded as a reliable method, and I am not so thrilled by its alleged advantages as I used to be.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 25, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
Hi All,
Just finished reading this very interesting discussion.
I've always felt that there might be some kind of connection between the early attacks on Emma Smith and Martha Tabram and the five later canonical ripper murders, although currently I tend to think the connection was likely not a direct one involving a common killer or linked thugs, but more one of influence. This is what I have in mind. It would certainly help to remove a few coincidences.
There was little or no publicity about the fate of poor Emma, at least not until Martha was found with all those stab wounds. Then the press took notice and people of every class across the land were soon reading about these vicious and fatal assaults on two prostitutes in Whitechapel, with their ghastly jolly bank holiday theme in common.
I imagine the ripper himself could well have been one of those readers - a cowardly little man who harboured the very darkest fantasies about violence and death, and had probably experimented in the past on helpless animals, and got chills and thrills from imagining himself progressing to humans, if only he could get the right kind of inspiration from somewhere and psyche himself up sufficiently for the job.
Did these two murders strike such a chord with an emerging Jack that they gave him 'permission' to become the man he had long wanted to be? Did he take advantage of all the circumstances, including the attendant publicity, to begin in earnest with Polly, knowing that the press would have a field day linking all three, and that his first victim in an area he knew and was comfortable in would cause the kind of instant sensation he craved?
I am also beginning to wonder if Alice, and perhaps even Frances too, died because someone had a personal interest in making people think the ripper was not out of the picture by then.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 354
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
Caz,
I have long held similar thoughts. It would be interesting if everyone on the boards would chime in here with there thoughts. At one time this was a very active thread but with limited participants and it seems to have died down again. Come on Gang!
Mikey |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 4:19 am: | |
Hi there Mikey,
Thanks for the thumbs-up.
Yeah, come on gang, the water's warming up again here. 
Love,
Caz
X
PS I also think Rose may have been a pre-Christmas anticlimax for a drooping Jack, entering his self-destruct phase. Chambers definition fits this creep like a glove IMHO - anticlimax - 'a ludicrous drop in impressiveness after a progressive rise'. Any other girlies out there totally unimpressed by the 'choked by her own stiff velvet collar while drunk' nonsense, after her recent meal of stomach-lining meat and potatoes? No alcohol was found in Rose's tummy and the mark on her neck had been very hard to detect. Think how much harder any such mark would have been to detect on the canonical five - I'm thinking ligatures of course, to help overcome the victims more easily.
(Message edited by Caz on May 12, 2004) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
G'day Caz,
I'm with you on those thoughts too!
I've skimmed through books that look at a serial killers thought process.
'The Anatomy Of Motive' by John Douglas says: My own view, developed over many years of research and observation, is that the media can provide criminals with ideas for their crimes (both modus operandi and signiture elements), may serve as an influencing factor in those already prone to violent actions, and may desensitize all of us to the real horror that is out there, but except in a few specialized types of cases, the media (and that includes pornography) do not lead otherwise good or law-abiding people to commit violent antisocial acts.' (I know there's too many commas there but that's how it appeared.)
Another book I read: 'Serial Killers, The Growing Menace' by Joel Norris, examined convicted serial killers and found that all of them experience some sort of violence (physical or emotional) in their youth.
I think what these books are saying that a serial killer who was abbused or has suffered a traumatic childhood can be triggered by society, (via newspapers and todays television, Movies, books), into sudden violence. They may have merely been cruel to animals in their youth.
A killer has to start somewhere! I don't think it's necessary that Jack had to have killed, or been violent to humans before the canonical five!
Did I say anything worthwhile there?
LEANNE |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 86
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Brad:
I know the case you're talking of. I'm from Syracuse,NY but I'm vague on the details as I was overseas at the time. I believe however, the culprit was apprehended and never actually stabbed any of his victims 100 times. I believe that was just talk to taunt the police. I might be wrong though. Kindest regards, Neil |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 1:07 pm: | |
I would like to recommend reading the newly posted dissertation on Emma Smith by Quentin L. Pittman, which I believe is very interesting, and which is important in the context of the earlier discussions on this board regarding the evolution of the early technique of the Ripper. I am coming to be more and more convinced that Tabram was a Ripper victim, and now I am wondering if Emma Smith (and Annie Milwood) were also.
It is difficult for me to put myself in the shoes of a Whitechapel prostitute, and to understand the frame of mind of a woman like Emma Smith. However, it is conceivable to me that she made up the story of being attacked by a gang, out of embarrassment or just being psychologically traumatized after a vicious sexual assault by a customer. If we are willing to consider this possibility, then Emma Smith fits in a very clear lineage of escalating violence and crimes that are otherwise very similar.
Link is here: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/importance-fairy.html
Rob H |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 87
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
Rob:
It is an interesting avenue to pursue. I still believe that Emma was not a victim. The method of her death even if we accept she lied, (A very plausible supposition in my opinion) is toatally different. As I have stated before, I doubt the killer would have switched weapons as he is alleged to have done with Tabram. In poor Emma's case, I suspect that she lied but the medical evidence states she died of periontitis caused by a blunt object forced into her vagina. I would look for a single culprit most likely a pimp that she refused to pay. Kindest regards, Neil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1776
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 5:24 pm: | |
I agree with Neil here.
Emma Smith is an even more unlikely victim than Tabram.
It is quite possible that she lied about the assailant(s), though, namely for two reasons:
1) that she felt a bit awkward about having fallen victim to an angry client, as have been stated above
2) she may have been afraid for her safety in revealing the real perpetrator(s).
On the other hand, it is well known that there were criminal and violent gangs in East End and different constellations of pimp activity as well, so therefore there is really no reason to doubt her when she referred to a gang of hooligans. Remember, this was East End, and I fail to see why we must assume that she possibly lied about a gang attacking her. To me it's a very likely scenario, considering the environment -- just as likely as she may have been attacked by a lone angry client or pimp.
However, in my personal belief -- a Ripper victim she was not. We can't blame the Ripper for all criminal violent activity in Whitechapel at the time. There are no similarities in method whatsoever, even if we consider the "evolutionary" argument.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 84
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
No similarities in method whatsoever, other than being a prostitute in Whitechapel in the same year on a (I believe) weekend/holiday assaulted violently in the part of the body that Jack was known to have an intense fascination with. Not much, admittedly, but definitely not nothing.
It does fit perfectly well in the evolutionary argument. Being at the far end of a potential series (in the case, the beginning) would mean the differences with the others would be even more pronounced. Sometimes serial killers start out in ways that are completely different, but of course it'd be near impossible to find a link in those instances without the murderer admitting it later.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
