|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 57
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 8:30 am: |       |
Well, this is it then, the case is finally closed folks, we can all go home and sleep tight, now that our own trained psychologist schooled in the arts of abnormal psychology, Shannon, has so splendidly and objectively analyzed the whole case.
See you,
Frank |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 1:08 pm: | |
Shannon,
Hmmm... An interesting reply. Let's start with your beginning assumptions:
"In each murder (no I don’t include Liz) the killer performed three actions; strangled the victim, slit the throat, and performed an abdominal mutilation. These are the killer's A, B, C's and none appear on Martha."
You're talking MO here, not signature. But in any case, MJK wasn't strangled, so we can rule her out I guess. And Martha suffered extensive wounds to the abdominal and groin area. There wasn't any abdominal excavations perhaps, but there is no doubt that her abdomen was in fact mutilated by any reasonable definintion of the word.
"Some may call it trivial, but to the mind of the killer it’s anything but. Jack (and I know I will take flack for this) actually showed a level of compassion for his victims by killing them very quickly so they didn't suffer, and then inflicted the mutilations post mortem when they couldn’t feel it."
This has been suggested before, but I tend to agree with Ally. This probably isn't a courtesty to his victims, but an attempt to bring them down quickly. His seemed to get his jollies post-mortem.
Your description of SKs in general is interesting, but WAY out of line with anything I have ever read on the subject. (And I have read extensively) I'll adress a few specifics.
"This is not the mark of a true serial killer who relishes the control of life over death he shows his victims. This is more the actions of a hunter stalking a deer and making the kill as quick and painless to the animal as possible."
While control is one of the primary motivations of SKs, it need not be control of "life over death". Post motem mutilations, posting, etc are all expressions of control over their victim. Bundy and Dahmer were both more into the post morem aspects of victim control. Bundy in particular simply wanted to kill his victims ASAP so he could have his way with their remains.
"The enjoyment they receive is worth the risk they take and one reason most all serial killers are themselves killed rather than surrender to the authorities and have to live the rest of their life in the control of an institution."
Er, most all serial kilers are NOT "themselves killed rather than surrender". The ones that are identified are caught, tried, and executed or imprisioned. Rarely do they engage the police or kill themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken into custody.
"The police make a fundamental mistake about the workings of a serial killer."
So, perhaps they could have made a mistake in not including Martha...? They certainly included Stride, whom you discount.
"They believe that they have to make one person fit all the murders. Which we know today isn’t the case. The Boston strangler was never convicted of murder, only aggravated sexual assault. The Atlanta child murderer was only charged with two murders even though he committed well over twenty. Gacy was only convicted of a couple of the murders even though he killed over thirty."
Er, they picked and choose 5 victims out of the many potentials, so I don't see that being at all true. (As an aside, there is SERIOUS doubt that De Salvo was in fact the strangler. Wayne Williams certainly did not kill all attributed to him, but the reason he was only charged with two was because that is where the best evidence was. As far as Gacy goes, there's little doubt that he killed all of them. The reason he was only tried for some of them twofold. 1) It's much more difficult to put together a case for 30 murders than 2. And 2) Trying him on a subset of the murders allowed the prosecution the opportunity to try again if here were accquitted, or not given the death penalty without violating the double jeopardy rule.)
"Why more plausible to go from non killer to Ripper without an evolution? Because Jack is not a true serial killer in the respect that he derives pleasure from the kill, nor does he fit the clinical description of a mass murderer or spree killer."
There is no doubt in my mind that Jack was a serial killer. Every professioanl profiler who has looked at the case has come to that conclusion. I think you're operating under some false assumptions of what a serial killer is. As evidenced by "A serial killer is addicted to the rush from the kill. Jack wasn't."
"The killings are not sexual in nature, they were done very violently, very quickly, and the throat and abdominal wounds are all done post mortem when the victim could feel no pain."
Er, sexual mutilations with a knife is in fact pretty typical of SKs. Surely you're aware of the symbolism of the knife here?
Could you please tell me where you're getting your background information on SKs? Given your post above I am really curious.
Regards,
John |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 2:10 pm: | |
Hi all
I thought that Anderson and Abberline did include Tabram in the list.
Robert |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 2:25 pm: | |
Robert,
Yep, you're absolutely correct. Abberline and Anderson both endorsed Tabram as a Ripper victim.
Regards,
John |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | |
Is there a problem with the time frame? |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 308
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 8:50 pm: | |
John,
You're talking MO here, not signature. But in any case, MJK wasn't strangled,
Sorry, you’re wrong on both counts. Mary was held by the neck while the killer slit her throat (from the post mortem: The lips were blanched (which mean the color was taken out of them)... The right arm was slightly abducted from the body and rested on the mattress. The elbow was bent, the forearm supine with the fingers clenched).
This indicates that her lips had no color which is the absence of blood and her fingers were clinched indicating that something was placed over her mouth and forced down to the point where it cut off the circulation. So she was strangled/suffocated.
So we can rule her out I guess. And Martha suffered extensive wounds to the abdominal and groin area. There wasn't any abdominal excavations perhaps, but there is no doubt that her abdomen was in fact mutilated by any reasonable definition of the word.
Not by ANY definition was she abdominally mutilated in the same context as the others were. She had numerous puncture wounds from being repeatedly stabbed, not sliced.
This has been suggested before, but I tend to agree with Ally. This probably isn't a courtesy to his victims, but an attempt to bring them down quickly. His seemed to get his jollies post-mortem.
Again, how did he get his "jollies" post mortem since he departed the area immediately after the killing? In case you want to question this too, take a look at the police logs for Watkins and Neil.
Your description of SKs in general is interesting, but WAY out of line with anything I have ever read on the subject. (And I have read extensively) I'll adress a few specifics.
"This is not the mark of a true serial killer who relishes the control of life over death he shows his victims. This is more the actions of a hunter stalking a deer and making the kill as quick and painless to the animal as possible."
While control is one of the primary motivations of SKs, it need not be control of "life over death".
Perhaps a return to the library is in order. Control is THE primary goal of a serial or sexual serial killer. The killer wants the victim to experience fear, to know they are going to die, and to take pleasure in their death. That is the rush they get.
Post mortem mutilations, posting, etc are all expressions of control over their victim. Bundy and Dahmer were both more into the post mortem aspects of victim control. Bundy in particular simply wanted to kill his victims ASAP so he could have his way with their remains.
NOT TRUE, Bundy himself admitted to police detectives that he kept some of his victims in a comatose and barely alive state for hours or days before disposing of them. Several of his 30 or so victims were buried in shallow woodland graves, where he sometimes revisited them.
(Source: Stephen G. Michaud's "Hollow Men" interviews with Ted Bundy)
Er, most all serial killers are NOT "themselves killed rather than surrender". The ones that are identified are caught, tried, and executed or imprisoned. Rarely do they engage the police or kill themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken into custody.
They do not surrender, they are either captured or killed, nor do they just up and quit.
"The police make a fundamental mistake about the workings of a serial killer."
So, perhaps they could have made a mistake in not including Martha...? They certainly included Stride, whom you discount.
Stride was included because she was killed on the same night as Kate. If you look at the Stride thread you will find a lengthy discussion about the reasons why I do not consider her a Ripper victim.
"They believe that they have to make one person fit all the murders. Which we know today isn’t the case. The Boston strangler was never convicted of murder, only aggravated sexual assault. The Atlanta child murderer was only charged with two murders even though he committed well over twenty. Gacy was only convicted of a couple of the murders even though he killed over thirty."
Er, they picked and choose 5 victims out of the many potentials, so I don't see that being at all true. (As an aside, there is SERIOUS doubt that De Salvo was in fact the strangler. Wayne Williams certainly did not kill all attributed to him, but the reason he was only charged with two was because that is where the best evidence was. As far as Gacy goes, there's little doubt that he killed all of them. The reason he was only tried for some of them twofold. 1) It's much more difficult to put together a case for 30 murders than 2. And 2) Trying him on a subset of the murders allowed the prosecution the opportunity to try again if here were acquitted, or not given the death penalty without violating the double jeopardy rule.)
Thank you for stating my argument for me. The only reason they try a couple of the murders is because they select the ones they can prove beyond reasonable doubt.
FYI, if DeSalvo wasn’t the killer why did the murders stop the day he was arrested?
"Why more plausible to go from non killer to Ripper without an evolution? Because Jack is not a true serial killer in the respect that he derives pleasure from the kill, nor does he fit the clinical description of a mass murderer or spree killer."
There is no doubt in my mind that Jack was a serial killer. Every professional profiler who has looked at the case has come to that conclusion.
Every profiler? Nice try, but again you need to check the facts. When the FBI profilers did the case, they described a suspect that amazingly enough resembles Joseph Barnett in many ways, so the true serial killer theory goes out the window unless you are willing to admit that Joseph was the killer...
I think you're operating under some false assumptions of what a serial killer is. As evidenced by "A serial killer is addicted to the rush from the kill. Jack wasn't."
"The killings are not sexual in nature, they were done very violently, very quickly, and the throat and abdominal wounds are all done post mortem when the victim could feel no pain."
Er, sexual mutilations with a knife is in fact pretty typical of SKs. Surely you're aware of the symbolism of the knife here?
And, surely your aware that it was the easiest weapon to obtain in 1888. What would the killer have used? A gun perhaps? Not likely due to a, noise, b, possession was a death sentence, and c, the cost of ammunition...
Could you please tell me where you're getting your background information on SKs? Given your post above I am really curious.
From the following medical journals: Journal of abnormal psychology, editor Tim Baker PHD, Serial killers feed on fear and thrills, Buried Dreams: inside the mind of a serial killer, the encyclopedia of serial killers by Brian Lane and Wilford Gregg, Probing the mind of a serial killer by J. Apsche, and Overkill - Mass Murders and Serial Killers Exposed by Fox and Levine.
Shannon
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 309
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 8:58 pm: | |
Ally: "A woman who is alive and getting her abdomen mutilated is going to scream--loudly, I imagine. Strangling them and then slitting their throat probably had less to do with compassion than a desire not to be caught."
Why not just knock them out, take them to some place secluded where the screams couldn't be heard? Or, why not just knock them out, gag them, and enjoy it in the privacy of a nearby shed?
1, the kill was made very quickly.
2, the mutilation was left as a message and not for personal pleasure or the kill would have been done at a time when the killer had more time to spend with the victim.
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1506
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 4:29 am: | |
Shannon, I'm puzzled by this. I thought you'd agreed that MJK probably wasn't strangled.
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 478
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 4:35 am: | |
Folks,
Quite a lot has been typed since I last looked so I wont intrude.
Just a few points I would like to add...
1) 3 inch wound in the 'lower body'. Wasnt described as a stab. The beginings of a mutilation act which was cut short ? He never had time to put his signature to it.
2) This F*@#ing bayonet. Why would a killer, in his frenzy, produce a bayonet in mid attack and stab her once and once only ?
3) Allys point on silence...sound familiar doesnt it ? A knock out blow would produce bruising...like I said, sound familiar...doesnt it Polly?
4) Lust murder...a link.
5) Location, Whitechapel....another link.
6) Clothing arrangement...another link.
7) Victimology.....ooh another link.
Just on these few point, thought up on the spot (yes, it took hours), I conclude that Martha is not worth looking at in respect of her being a victim of Jack the Ripper...nope....no way Hose...she did it herself !
The evidence is clear and I shall now refer to some books about another killer to prove my point cos they are all the same.
Monty..who knows absolutely nothing at all and was infact looking for the Jack Lemmon website not Jack Ripper !
(Message edited by monty on December 08, 2003) |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 312
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:07 am: | |
Robert, the only one (of the canonical) I agreed wasnt either suffocated or strangled is Liz...
Who ever killed Mary; Joe or not, had to make their way in the door, close it, find the bed in the dark without hitting the table and silence Mary in the waking seconds before she was able to sound an alarm. Only way to do that is suffocate or strangle her (its even described in my book this way)
Shannon
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1509
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:21 am: | |
Hi Shannon
Don't worry, I'm gradually reading it.
How come the separate splashes on the partition, then?
Robert |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 115
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 7:42 am: | |
Shannon,
What nearby shed? I mean, were there convenient sheds just lying around on every other street corner? Considering that (some quack theories aside) the murders were not planned in advance and were crimes of opportunity/discovery, it is hardly likely that he could have knocked a prostitute out, hoisted her up and carried her to a convenient spot for mutilation and fun and games in privacy without someone seeing him dragging an unconcious women through the streets. These crimes weren't planned.
|
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 116
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
And Shannon, the fact that her lips were blanched DOES NOT indicate that something was placed over her mouth. After death, whatever blood is left settles to the lowest point of the body... all corpses lips are blanched. It doesn't indicate suffocation. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 7:25 pm: | |
1. 'The killer needs to dominate fully the victim. Its in deciding how, when, and where the victim is to die that the killer exercises their "god-like" quality. This was not displayed in these murders.'
>>Certainly it was displayed, and throughout the series. Clearly the man had a decisive sense of his own omnipotence, considering the circumstances and nature of his crimes. Use your head.
2. Evolution, schmevolution. Throughout the series, the man was in the process of throwing himself into a big, dark hole, not in crawling out of the sea to sprout legs and live on land. How do you figure he was evolving? He wasn't getting any better, he was getting worse. De-evolution would be more like it. Remember the old band Devo, who wore inverted plastic flower pots on their heads? They used to sing: "We are Devo! D-E-V-O! We are Devo! D-E-V-O!"
3. In the Tabram case, the man hadn't yet had enough chance to devolve. Give him another few goes at it, and he blunders further off the page. Riddle me this: How is it possible to get better at getting worse? Cue the sound of one hand clapping, and the case is solved.
Saddam
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 2:36 am: | |
Shannon wrote:
"He may even change his location, but a signature is his statement to the powers that have told him to kill and that part of the crime has to be done out of respect for the entity that provided his bounty."
I, too, have to wonder where on earth you came up with that. The entity that provided his bounty? What entity? What are you talking about? This doesn't sound like you are talking about a serial killer, it sounds like you are talking about a priest of a cult or something. Most serial killers don't fit this description in any way, shape or form.
"If you believed the killer evolved, where are the first murders, or did he just start out by stabbing a prostitute 39 times? "
Well, it could very well be that he worked his way up with other kinds of assaults. Or maybe some of the other people listed on the victim's page here on this site that were attacked before Tabram were earlier Ripper victims. It's certainly possible. The fact that they haven't been ruled out would be why they are listed there.
"If you believe there is a connection here, why didnt the police of the day see it? "
The police did, actually. Go read the newspaper articles and what we have of the police reports.
Besides, it seems pretty silly for you to try to prove that something couldn't be true because the police didn't think it was so when your own theories contradict the police many times over. I would think whatever the real answer is, it'd contradict what the police thought in many different ways. It's not like they were infallible in their judgments.
"It was only three weeks between her murder and Polly's"
Yet another reason to think that it may have been the same killer. Note that the murders, including Tabram, all fell on nights of holidays and weekends. That's yet another possible link.
I'm not going to sit here and say that Tabram definitely was a Ripper victim, as that would be very presumptious. But for you to say that she definitely wasn't shows yet another example of how you are so caught up in your opinions that you can't tell them apart from proven facts. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 3:40 am: | |
HI everyone,
I am totally convinced Tabram was jacks victim.
I hate to bore, but 39 stab wounds says it all.
Murder by design.
To repeat.
Tabram. stabbed 39 times.
Nichols killed 31st aug - Chapman 8th sept= 39
Stride/ Eddowes killed 3oth sept. Kelly 9th Nov =39
31ST of the 8th month + 30th of the 9th month =39.
I appreciate I am going over old ground, but Tabrams murder sets the pattern off, so is likely to have been his work.
Richard. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:27 pm: | |
Sounds like a case of Compulsive obsessive disorder.
Where the killer has to obey the number 39 via the murder and mutilation of women, or he thinks something terrible will happen to him, or to someone close to him.
I don't know about the number 39, but the killer did seem to follow a pattern in his killing dates.
And his mutilation to the face of Eddowes exibits ritualistic tendencies.
From the Internet Mental Health site. And I hope I'm not breaching copyright here.
Obsessional thoughts are ideas, images or impulses that enter the individual's mind again and again in a stereotyped form. They are almost invariably distressing (because they are violent or obscene, or simply because they are perceived as senseless) and the sufferer often tries, unsuccessfully, to resist them. They are, however, recognized as the individual's own thoughts, even though they are involuntary and often repugnant. Compulsive acts or rituals are stereotyped behaviours that are repeated again and again. They are not inherently enjoyable, nor do they result in the completion of inherently useful tasks. The individual often views them as preventing some objectively unlikely event, often involving harm to or caused by himself or herself. Usually, though not invariably, this behaviour is recognized by the individual as pointless or ineffectual and repeated attempts are made to resist it; in very long-standing cases, resistance may be minimal. Autonomic anxiety symptoms are often present, but distressing feelings of internal or psychic tension without obvious autonomic arousal are also common. There is a close relationship between obsessional symptoms, particularly obsessional thoughts, and depression. Individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder often have depressive symptoms, and patients suffering from recurrent depressive disorder may develop obsessional thoughts during their episodes of depression. In either situation, increases or decreases in the severity of the depressive symptoms are generally accompanied by parallel changes in the severity of the obsessional symptoms.
Cludgy. |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 51
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
I haven't read the whole thread though maybe i should. I came on to put forth a question but when in Rome.. It was stated at Martha Tabram's inquest that a bayonet was not the weapon. My question is this. After reading the archived thread concerning this on the CD of the old boards, I realized that I stated it was possible Tabram was stabbed with a clasp knife such as a sailor might carry. Is it possible, all you medical/forensic types, that the weapon was a stout knife like a Bowie knife or a dagger and the differences were causes by working the knife back and forth to remove it from the sternum?
My view is that Tabram was One of Jack's first victims if not his very first. My .02$ for what it's worth. Kindest regards, Neil |
Michael Raney
Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 42
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
Neil,
I think you are right on, both about the knife(not sure about type, but I believe it was worked back and forth in her sternum and that Martha Tabram was one of his first victims.
Mikey |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 52
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 4:48 pm: | |
Shannon; Might I inject that there well may have been other victims inthe interim between Tabram and Nichols? They may not have been in Whitechapel. If they were not recognized as Jack's victims it may be that no-one knew at the point that they were looking at a serial killer. If these other victims were not in Whitechapel they would not be linked by police. Mind you, I have no proof that there were other victims or that Jack the Ripper operated outside of London although I suspect that he did I have only a hunch.
As to a connection between Tabram and the other victims, Inspector Abberline certainly saw it. He stated Tabram was a victim.
If Jack clamped a hand over the victims mouth and slit their throats first, there would be no need to render them unconcious. They wouldn't be able to scream.
Going off topic very quickly, in re your comment about Mary Kelly finding the bed etc. Would the haver had a problem doing so if MJK had invited them in for a tryst? I thought I read somewhere that it was theorized that she had invited her killer in. Kindest regards, Neil. PS- I ask because I'm trying to understand these killings better. N |
jerry maynard
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 11:05 pm: | |
That idea that the Ripper has a pattern involving number 39 makes the Lewis Carroll as a suspect theory not so far fetched since he had an obsession with 3 and 42. 39 is less than 42. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 855
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
If it helps, I once bid £3000 for an original Lewis Carroll manuscript but the British Museum weighed in with a bid of £42,000 and I lost it.
I have been told it is worth over £500,000 today.
I looked it over on my last trip to London and quite honestly I don't believe it was worth a fiver. |
Chris Michetti
Police Constable
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 2:58 pm: | |
About the 'bayonet' wound, it could have been the soldier spotted by the PC who said "My friend went up with a girl and I'm waiting for him" who came up to help his buddy finish her off with a stab of his own, from a different knife.
Chris Michetti |
Chris Michetti
Police Constable
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 8:57 am: | |
I would tend to believe that Tabram was indeed a JTR killing. How often does someone hit a home run in their first at-bat? He might still have been testing the waters to see how long he had and what he could get away with at that point. Once he realized nobody even had a clue in the least who he was, he probably got cockier and started to not only kill but mutilate his victims. Just my guess.
Chris Michetti 
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 766
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
Chris,
The thing is, to me, I dont think he gave a rats ass on if people knew who he was or not. Not a least during his 'phases'.
Monty
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
