|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:09 am: |       |
"It could be that he was just a common thief, this is the more likely
explanation"
Jack may or may not have been many things, but the ONE thing I feel confident saying is that he was not a "common thief". Robbery was not the motive for these horrendous crimes.
Sir Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
How do we know exactly when the money would have changed hands, or even whether Jack approached his victims or they approached him?
If a punter paid a prostitute on the main road, before she took him somewhere quieter, there must have been a risk that she would do a runner with the cash instead of performing, or that a copper would catch him handing over the coppers. Isn't it possible that the deal would have been struck with a simple "Want a good time ducks? It'll only cost you fourpence", then she would take him off down a side street and demand the dosh at the point of delivery? At which point, Jack could go for his knife instead of his loose change.
No chance of fingerprint evidence, though, in 1888, to trap him had he handed over any coins and left them at the scene.
But I don't know why anyone has a problem with the idea that Jack may have wanted to take a tangible souvenir away with him so he could prove to himself afterwards that it hadn't all been a dream, that he really had got away with murder. He took a piece or two of their bodies, but these weren't going to last forever. So why not a coin too, if he found one, or a button, or maybe a pawn ticket? How would anyone know if something like this had been on a victim's person immediately before the attack but was missing when the body was found?
Love,
Caz |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 12:24 pm: | |
All,
We're ignoring the obvious here folks - the Ripper was most likely (95% in my mind) not a member of the upper classes or the nobility. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that he would pass up taking any money his victims may have had - particularly if he had given it to them. Money is money...if he was willing to cut out a uterus, why not grab the tuppence you just shelled out to get her to walk to her spot?
As Caz stated, while fingerprints were in existance, they weren't used by the Met until 1904 or so, and the first time someone was convicted by fingerprint evidence was 1892 in Argentina.
As for the rest, it's just speculation. I'll read through East End 1888 again, but I don't recall seeing anything about "standard operating procedures for prostitutes and their processing of accounts receivable for services rendered."  We don't know if he just flashed the cash, actually gave it to them, or what.
B |
Saddam Hussein The You-know-what
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 3:39 pm: | |
Money is power. So if he's on a power trip, he might think to take that away from too.
S.H.T.D. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 5:16 pm: | |
Money may be power, but more likely - to the Ripper at least - money equalled food and a bed.
B |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 26
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 6:47 pm: | |
Hey Brian!
I don't for a minute believe the motive behind these crimes was robbery. Nor do I believe the Ripper needed to take these women's 4p in order to feed and shelter himself. He may or may not have been well-to-do, but I don't believe he was on the same rung of the food chain as his victims. Whoever he was, I think he needed accomodations that permitted him to come and go without notice, and a doss house bed wouldn't have done the trick.
Sir Robert |
Neil K. MacMillan
Police Constable
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 8:48 pm: | |
My personal belief is that Jack had both money and a place to lay his head. Having said that, many serial killers take trophies and in fact so do many soldiers on the battlefield Manfred von Richtoffen comes immediately to mind. He took the registration (Side) numbers of the aircraft he shot down. Taking the rings or any money the victims would have had would, in my opinion, be less about pecunary need than about the hunt.
While we don't know and likely never will know what happened in the last moments of Jack's victims it is a safe assumption that they were out looking to make their doss money. The fact that Tabram and Stride had been with customers doesn't mean that they had money. Two hours elapsed when we don't know what Tabram did. Just because no one saw her go into a public house doesn't mean that she didn't. In fact, no one came forward to state they had seen Martha in those two hours. That is all the current evidence tells us no more and no less. The same is true of "Long Liz" and her last moments. They may have been robbed, they may have spent their meagre earnings or they may have lost the coin, we don't know. Great fun speculating about it and in fact Saddam, isn't that what we are all doing here? Kindest regards, Neil |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:08 pm: | |
"Taking the rings or any money the victims would have had would, in my opinion, be less about pecunary need than about the hunt. "
Couldn't agree more, Neil. Of course, we are speculating and could be barking up the wrong tree, but in my opinion it is dangerous to conclude that the thefts of small change tell us anything about the Ripper's economic status.
That he took the precious time to rob his victims undoubtedly means something; I just don't know what it is. It's easier to conclude what it doesn't.
Sir Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 6:23 am: | |
'Whoever he was, I think he needed accomodations that permitted him to come and go without notice, and a doss house bed wouldn't have done the trick.'
Couldn't agree more, Sir Robert. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't also agree with Brian when he says money is money.
But, Brian, how do rich people stay rich? By looking after the pennies they make from the not-so-rich. Goodness, there have been plenty of millionaires who look and live like paupers because they can't bear to part with a penny.
a. It is possible, even likely, that most if not all of the victims were penniless when they met Jack.
b. It is also possible, though less likely, that no money changed hands before Jack struck. He could have given them a few swigs from a hip flask or, when it looked like he was fishing around for the fee, produced his shiny knif instead.
c. All were definitely penniless when he left, and there is some evidence that he went through their possessions.
d. We do know he took away some bodily parts.
There is simply no way of telling what else he took, if anything, from his victims. And even if we knew that he had taken coins or other items, we'd only be guessing at his motives. He could on the one hand be a miserly shabby-genteel type, who could no more leave a penny on a dead body than fly to the moon, regardless of personal wealth. He could, on the other, be stretched beyond his means because of the private lodgings he needed for his activities. We have no idea what his outgoings were - he may even have been leading a double life, working, killing and lodging alone in one location, living with family members in another.
One thing seems pretty clear - to me at least - Jack meant to leave his mark (the mutilations, nicked eyelids and so on) and he did take biological souvenirs. So how can there be a strong argument against him being on the lookout for a material souvenir or two if there for the taking - not for spending or for selling, but for keeping. Anyone could keep a scrapbook of newspaper cuttings about the murders, but only the murderer had the luxury of saving something unique and permanent from his encounters.
Unlike a fan who owns a lock of Marilyn's hair, or a comb once used by Elvis, a serial killer knows he has the genuine article. 
Love,
Caz
|
Neil K. MacMillan
Police Constable
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 8:30 am: | |
A very bizarre evidence of your point Caz is the case of Edward Gein. When he killed his last victim, he kidnapped her from her store and also took the cash register. When confronted by the sheriff (who also happened to be the victim's son)He was indignant at being thought a common thief. He took the cash register to see how it worked, Gein explained to the police. He kept various trophies including making a vest out of the skin of one of his victims. Jack might have been a sick man but Gein had him beat all to spades in that department. Kindest regards, Neil |
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 8:31 am: | |
Caz--You wrote: "All were definitely penniless." I think Martin Fido might argue with you here. In his book [p 31] he suggests that there were two farthings left by Chapman's feet, which, in itself, would blow much of the above speculation out of the water. Personally, though, I agree with your general idea.
In the case of Alice McKenzie, a farthing was found under her body, though the wording of some reports is ambiguous enough that it could actually be interpretted as to having been a farthing pipe. A 'farthing', I believe might even have been slang for such a pipe(?). Cheers, RJP |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 8:50 am: | |
R.J.,
I think Sugden pretty much laid the whole "farthing" myth from the Chapman murder to rest, as it was based on press reports that were basically made up as the Met refused access to anyone from the media near Hanbury Street.
As for the money issues, I don't think him taking whatever pennies may or may not have been on the body is an indicator of economic status. I think the times and the actual crimes are.
I know this gets into psychobabble, but hear me out - and keep in mind my belief that these were sexual serial crimes:
First, we know that the Ripper was not psychopathic. If he were, he would not have made quick getaways, leaving no trace of himself, such as taking the murder weapon from the scene. Psychopaths don't realize what they are doing is wrong, so they wouldn't think to hide or leave the scene so quickly.
Second, we know that he must have been secure in his finances. "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" is pretty clear that when you aren't sure where you basic shelter, security and sustenenance are coming from, things like sex don't matter. It's only when those basic fundamentals are met that you can worry about things like sexual desires.
Third, from the times of the murders - early mornings, primarily on weekends or holidays - we can assume that he was in regular work. The dates also indicate a kind of job where you would get weekends off, like a clerkship.
With those things in mind, I consider it safe to say that we can eliminate the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor from our suspect list. That leaves the upper section of the working poor and the middle class.
In any event, neither a member of the working poor, nor of the middle class would simply pass up money if it were laying there, waiting to be taken. Like I said before, if he had time to cut out a uterus, he had time to rummage through their belongings - which it appears he did.
Why take a trophy like coins, when you've got an actual piece of the victim with you? The money was just money.
B |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 162
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 9:31 am: | |
Hi all,
Brian, I'm still undecided on the issue of money, but will say that most of your post makes perfect sense to me.
I have to disagree with you on this statement though: "First, we know that the Ripper was not psychopathic. If he were, he would not have made quick getaways, leaving no trace of himself, such as taking the murder weapon from the scene. Psychopaths don't realize what they are doing is wrong, so they wouldn't think to hide or leave the scene so quickly"
From what I've read regarding psychology and serial killers- while it's true that many psychopaths don't understand the concepts of 'right' or 'wrong', they are cognizant of their actions.
Usually, they do take their weapon away from the scene with them, and make a clean escape. It's the schizophrenic, or 'disorganized' killers who typically will leave leave clues at the scene, and not have much thought as to the consequences of their actions. They often don't contemplate an escape, and will wander around all bloodied from an attack.
A good example of such a killer is Richard Chase. I had a marvellous conversation with AP Wolf on this subject, which ended with an agree to disagree. |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:38 am: | |
"Why take a trophy like coins, when you've got an actual piece of the
victim with you? The money was just money. "
Considering how little we know of Jack's thought processes, I am surprised anyone would make a definitive statement as to what the money may or may not have meant. Not to mention that Caz has astutely pointed out that money may not have actually changed hands.
Coins have an advantage that body parts lack. You can carry them around in your pocket. It's not hard for me to envision Jack getting quite a thrill from the trophies jangling in his pocket.
Sir Robert
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 11:11 am: | |
Marie,
You are right - I mispoke. I should have said "psychotic" when I said "psychopath". Psychotic individuals are unable to tell the difference between right and wrong. Thanks for setting me straight.
Sir Bob,
Coins are generic. They are common. They have no actual link to the victim. Throw fifty pennies into the air and you won't be able to pick out which one was the one you took from your victim. And in a pinch, when it's cold and you're hungry, coins will give you warmth and a meal. They don't make good trophies.
I remember reading that Albert Fish used to carry around the finger bones of some of his victims as a trophy. Had Jacky wanted to carry around a trophy in his pocket, I'm sure he would've taken one that was "portable".
As for the money not changing hands, that's entirely possible. But at some point, Jacky needed to convince his victims that they were going to get paid - and definitely think he would've had to "show them the money" - whether it changed hands or not, we don't know. But it's safe to say it was present.
But you're right - we're assuming we know how the man thought, and we don't. So you could be right, but I'd bet my coins that you're not.
B |
Saddam Hussein The Dictator
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 10:25 pm: | |
I'd acknowledge that a truthful Ripperology would have to have some speculation in it, but it would also have to be asking itself if its quotient of speculation might be too much, or if a speculation X here might need to be cashed out by an empirical fact Y there.
In the same sense of criticism, I think, if we are to make a reasonable assessment of the character of the whatever-it-was that committed these crimes, then we must acknowledge that money could well have meant something entirely different to him than conventionalizations out of our point of view like a meal or a doss. In other words, if he was as different from us as his murder series indicates of him, then we can't assume that we'd necessarily be able to understand what stealing the money from the women meant to him, at least insofar as our customary way of looking at things is concerned.
The assumption that if he stole he stole for the same reasons we would steal in an invalid one.
S. Hussein |
Amy Carter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 12:56 pm: | |
hello all
i would like to like to offer my idea that maybe the rings were taken as a murder trophey as many known murders were known to take even to take body parts as mementoes.
Also not many people in the 1800's were educated fully (eg read and write) unless of higher class or nobility.
referring back to the writing on the wall after murder victem 4 the grammer and spelling were that of someone who was taught well.
thank you for taking time to thin over this
Amy |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 1:23 pm: | |
Amy,
That's a possibility. The rings could have been a trophy, considering that they were brass, not of much value, and a police canvass of the local jewelry stores and pawn shops came up with nothing.
Actually, literacy rates for the area were actually very high - between 60% and 80%. And that was for everyone - not just the nobility.
As for the writing after murder victim four, I assume you mean the Goulston Street Graffito, and I don't know if you can consider the incorrect spelling (assumed) of Jews - Juwes - and the double negative to be indicative of well taught English, but the handwriting was, at least, legible. This could indicate someone who was used to writing.
B |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 1:25 pm: | |
Dear Saddam Radka,
"we must acknowledge that money could well have meant something entirely different to him than conventionalizations out of our point of view like a meal or a doss. "
You've hit the nail on the head.
As I've said, I believe that everything Jack did had a meaning and a purpose, but it is fraught with danger to try to extrapolate from our viewpoint WHAT those meanings and purposes were.
Sir Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:08 pm: | |
Brian--Yeah, I'm aware that the farthings at Chapman's feet have been much maligned.
And, personally, I hope Martin Fido is wrong, otherwise I'm left with the fact that Annie Chapman:
1) Is the only Ripper victim known to have money on her body
and
2) the only Ripper victim murdered between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday.
Naw...couldn't be
Cheers, RJP |
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 4:14 pm: | |
No wonder they can't find Saddam - he's hiding on these boards! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 2:33 pm: | |
'Throw fifty pennies into the air and you won't be able to pick out which one was the one you took from your victim. And in a pinch, when it's cold and you're hungry, coins will give you warmth and a meal. They don't make good trophies.'
How on earth can anyone else be the judge of what the ripper might or might not consider a good trophy?
How do we know that Jack didn't already have more than enough coins, not taken from his victims, for when he got cold and hungry?
If Jack had kept a coin as a trophy, he would be the only person in the whole wide world who would know - could ever know - that it was a trophy. And he would be perfectly safe keeping it forever in a special place, because no one else could possibly guess its significance unless he told them, which is hardly likely. Chapman's rings, if he kept them, made far riskier trophies.
Finally, if he's pinched a coin for a trophy he's not going to throw it up in the air with 49 other coins that mean nothing to him, is he? Just as he's not likely to purchase 4 dozen pigs' kidneys then lose Eddowes' kidney in among them.
Love,
Caz |
Zkot
Sergeant
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 14
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 4:39 pm: | |
Very well said, Caz. You took the key strokes right outta my fingertips.
Anything may be considered a trophy- an organ, a drachma, a finger, a fingernail, a torn moth's-wing, an M&M (preferrably a plain green one), a lock of purloined blonde, a photograph, an eight-track recording of Abba, a tooth, whatever. After all, one man's trash is another man's treasure.
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z)
E'er unscrupulous as Gilles de Rais
I award filles de joie only lethargy
Random organs as trophies I cleave away
Souvenirs for a wicked reliquary. |
Zkot
Sergeant
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 17
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 6:01 pm: | |
Hi Brian,
You wrote: "I should have said "psychotic" when I said "psychopath". Psychotic individuals are unable to tell the difference between right and wrong."
Interesting. How about those who suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder?
I found the following via Google search:
The Borderline Personality.
In recent years psychologists have learned about and done case studies on a new personality disorder which the DSM-III-R classifies as an Axis II disorder- the Borderline Personality . This classification includes such personality disorders as the Anti-social Personality, the Histrionic Personality and the Narcissistic Personality. Several psychologists (including myself) diagonosed my stalker as afflicted with the Borderline Personality. Characteristic of the Borderline (derived from research done by Kreisman & Straus, 1989) are:
-a shaky sense of identity
-sudden, violent outbursts
-oversensitivity to real or imagined rejection
-brief, turbulent love affairs
-frequent periods of intense depression
-an irrational fear of abandonment and an inability to be alone
Not much research has been done on the Borderline Personality, and for many years it was difficult to diagnose- and to treat. A Borderline often feels as though his/her life is marked with a distinctive emptiness; a void in which a relationship often acts to fill. Many times the Borderline is a victim of an early dysfunctional family situation and/or emotional/physical abuse by those he/she trusted early on in childhood.
The Borderline is psychotic, in the original, psychological meaning of the term: he/she is not in control and not in touch with reality. To the Borderline, a softly spoken word of advice can be construed as a threat on his/her emotional stability. An outsider's viewpoint that the Borderline is not in touch with reality often ends in a bitter and irrational disassociation from the outsider on the part of the Borderline. Often, the Borderline ends up very much alone and victim to his/her disillusions.
The Borderline stalker is very apt to see his/her actions as perfectly justified; he/she has paranoid disillusions which support these-often with disturbing frequency. The Borderline often has brief love affairs which end abruptly, turbulently and leave the Borderline with enhanced feelings of self-hatred, self-doubt and a fear that is not often experienced by rational people. When the Borderline's relationships turn sour, the Borderline often begins to, at first, harass the estranged partner with unnecessary apologies and/or apologetic behavior (i.e. letters of apology 'from the heart', flowers delivered at one's place of employment, early morning weeping phonecalls, etc.). However, the Borderline does not construe his/her behavior as harassment- to the Borderline he/she is being 'responsible' for his/her past behaviors.
The next phase of the Borderline Personality develops relatively quickly and soon he/she feels suddenly betrayed, hurt, etc. and seeks to victimize the estranged partner in any way he/she can. Strangely enough, this deleterious behavior is always coupled with a need to be near or in constant contact with the estranged partner . While sending threats to the estranged partner, it is very common for the Borderline to begin to stalk his/her estranged partner in an effort to maintain contact. This effort is motivated by the excruciating fear that the Borderline will end up alone and anger that [the estranged partner] has put him/her in this position. We are finding, in many cases, that a great deal of stalking behavior is associated with Borderline or related personality disorders. Earlier research did not incorporate the Borderline Personality in stalking profiles; research now is beginning to focus on the Borderline in such disorders as Erotomania, etc.
Whether or not this may be applied to someone like Barnett, though, is debatable. And, of course, speculative.
Just food for thought. Perhaps Scott or Marie might have something more to add to this.
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z)
|
Zkot
Sergeant
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 20
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 6:47 pm: | |
Neil,
You wrote: "He (Edward Gein) kept various trophies including making a vest out of the skin of one of his victims. Jack might have been a sick man but Gein had him beat all to spades in that department."
While definitely quite morbid, I don't know if Ed necessarily had Jack beat all to spades in the 'degree of sickness' department. The grotesque job done to the lifeless body of MJK was pretty darn severe, too.
How about the grisly deeds done by Gilles de Rais?
Rather than be put to the Question, de Rais chose to confess everything. Only a full confession would spare him the torture he was so familiar with. His tearful confessions were so repugnant that one of the judges was moved to pull a curtain over a nearby painting of Jesus. In court, de Rais proved his obsession with the serial killing of children by describing their agonies in great detail. He confessed to having wallowed in the elastic warmth of their intestines. He confessed that he had ripped out their hearts through wounds enlarged and opening like ripe fruit. And with the eyes of a somnambulist he looked down at his fingers and shook them as if blood were dripping from them. It was also said that he had once dismembered a pregnant woman to make sport with the foetus.
Yuck. 
À tout al'heure!
Scott (with a Z)
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
