|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1515
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:01 am: | 
|
Hi Frank,
I don"t remember reading that actually but thats very interesting.I do remember that he and Brown agreed that in their view he didnt have to have been a doctor or surgeon[re Eddowes]whereas he was convinced over the uterus removal that he was.However since then others have had information on how difficult a task it can be for "those not in the know"to have removed the famous "kidney".Especially as he had so little time to find it and in such darkness and peril at being discovered.It was this, more even than removing an intact uterus in daylight[where we are not certain how long he had to do it]that persuades me that he knew what he was doing.As I said in another post it is apparently not an easy organ to take,the kidney, because of its tucked away position under another membrane.
So I still leave open the possibility that it could have been a doctor/student doctor.But the idea of a specialist slaughterer also interests me because such a person would already have great skill at throat cutting,know about the effects of blood loss on the rest of the body and therefore probably with the help of medical text books have easily translated his knowledge to humans.I tend to think the ripper was actually obsessed with the internal organs,cutting and desecration and could possibly have spent some years studying
anatomy and working out what he wanted from cutting women up.
Nats
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 334
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Hello,
The initial thrust of this thread was to question why so many people were keen to prove Jack The Ripper was middle class: a professional person.
Early police investigations seemed to have focussed on house-to-house searches, arguing that the murderer must have had a bolt-hole nearby to be able to make so speedy an escape. The neighbourhood was not middle class. So the police were searching for a local.
I think it was the combined Coronial evidence raising the possibility the Ripper possessed a medical knowledge, and the refocus on medical students and so-called "respectable" persons
found wandering in Whitechapel, which suggested to the press the reason the Ripper had not been caught was that the police were only looking for
East Enders.
Phil Hill asks is there any written works which indicate the extent of middle-class "slumming" in
the East End of 1888?
I once read an article-which I copied- from some Police journal of the 1960's/70's, which was a description of the extent of young people making a weekend recreation of frequenting the livelier
pubs and music halls of the "rougher" end of London. The police good-naturedly warned these young "toffs" to avoid certain places and be sensible about their safety.
I'll search for the article and type it out and cut and paste it. I have wanted to do so for some time.
Personally, with some Ripperology authors suggesting JTR was a "dressed down" Royal Surgeon; Prince Albert Edward; Walter Sickert; Louis Carroll; Sir Arthur Conan Doyle et al...I have a quiet chuckle to myself at the image of this caravanseri of Prominent Personnages mayhemming their way through the Hogarthian stews...
I don't think so...
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Wasn't serial killer John Christie a special constable or something similar? I'm pretty sure he was middle class, and outwardly respectable, which helped him to avoid suspicion. He only got caught after his lower class lodger, Timothy Evans, had been wrongfully executed for one of the murders Christie almost certainly committed.
I understood that in the 1880s, as in much more recent times, the East End played host to every class, with its hospital (doctors and patients, including the likes of D'Onston); its music halls and theatres (actors, managers and audiences); and its famous markets, like Petticoat Lane, where a few top hats and smart coats appear to have mingled well with all the caps and billycocks and shabby old clothes, without causing too many Cockney or poor Jewish eyebrows to be raised in amazement.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 651
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
Yes, Christie was a special constable during the war, and was a clerk by occupation, though his home in Rillington Place was a pretty squalid one (even before he started burying bodies on the premises), and Evans was a fellow tenant in the house rather than Christie's lodger.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 25, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1518
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Hi Caz! Hiya!
Some excellent points made there-thats right Theatre Land was mostly in the East End.And I remember Donald Rumbelow talking about St Botolph"s Church where the prostitutes apparently had to circle roun d to keep on the move away from the cops so as to get picked up by the men in top hats in their Hansom Cabs after the theatres had closed!
Will try to find the references which I have seen to "slumming"----I know that several famous poets of the time wrote about them the most famous being Ernest Dowson "s lovely "non sumqualis eram bonoe sub regno cynaraoe"-all about a prostitute
whose bought red mouth gave kisses sweet----until he woke and remembered his betrothed!
Will dig em out.
Natsxxx |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 714
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Hi everybody,
Just an aside; the East End and theatre go way back. I came across this reference to the East End and theatre in Park Honan's biography of Shakespeare. Honan wrote:
Biographers have said that the first purpose-built theatre, in use when Shakespeare was a schoolboy, dates from 1576. But we know of a free-standing theatre of earlier date: it was built in 1567 by John Brayne, a Bucklersbury grocer, with helpers at Whitechapel outside Aldgate. The site was near the garden of the Red Lion, which was not, so far as we know, an inn, but a 'messuage or farme house called and knowen by the Sygne of the Redd Lyon.' A five-foot-high stage, a thirty-foot turret, and tiers of galleries were 'framed' (or prefabricated) by 1 July 1567, when a dispute between Brayne and his chief builder, William Sylvester, stopped work. An appeal to the Company of Carpenters dragged on, and though plays were put on here, the venture never prospered.
Brayne was the brother-in-law of James Burbage, and later on it was Brayne who lent Burbage the money to build the Theater in Shoreditch. Brayne and Burbage had a huge falling-out over Burbage's embezzlement of profits--ugly names and even a fistfight were involved. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Thanks for that David,those little snippets of historical info I find thrilling , actually.I know now of a place about a half mile from there more towards Charterhouse where the basement,which is now a part of quite another building has been found to be the basement of Shakespeares London House .
But around the Tower where Pepys old church-it was old then-a couple of hundred years in 1666, still stands, just as it was inside very tiny -unbelievable with the painted statue portraits of him and his wife Elizabeth. This area is also famed for its wonderful old Wren churches.Pepys crossed from his house, which was in the same road as the church ,but was demolished ,to the Church Of All Hallows to climb the balcony and take notes on how the fire of London was spreading!Its still there too!And while I am talking of fires that was apparently another hobby of the upper classes including both The Prince and his son the Duke of Clarence.It appears that "Dad"used to downdress in a flat he went to in either Fenchurch Street or Cannon Street[cant remember which]and they used to "fire-watch" apparently-made me think there must have been loads of fires if it was some kind of "hobby" in those days!
Cheers Natalie |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 259
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 7:38 pm: |
|
On St Botolphs for a second (and being off-thread I suppose), did you know there has been a church there for over 1000 years and it houses the oldest church organ in London (from 1676)? They found the mummified body of a child in the crypt in the 18th century and charged tuppence to see it. Nats - you are right about it being the Merry-Go-Round of whores.
I own an original 1740 Act Of Parliament to rebuild it to the current 1744 one. But that probably won't surprise you!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1523
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 9:41 am: |
|
Cor,I envy you that Philip!Its a really interesting church straddling the city like it does as well as Whitechapel.And I"m very intrigued by what you say about the mummified child-a childs dead body features in Peter Ackroyd"s book on Christchurch ,Spitalfields entitled Hawkesmoor[since he designed it].He lived at nuber 20 Fournier Street[Nicholas Hawkesmoor].Fascinating places Spitalfields and Whitechapel.
Thanks for those tit bits !
Nats |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 71
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Well done, Dennis. In a span of a week your thread has given birth to 60 postings! It's true that there are some people who look at the higher levels of the London Society to search for the Ripper. Maybe a large percentage of those people are indeed only attracted by the supposed glamor of it. But I know there are also those who search this area for reasons which have nothing to do with glamor or flamboyancy.
I admit that Abberline flipped-flopped in his comments concerning Chapman which can cause a drop of confidence in his words to some. But when Abberline was old and retired, he shared his final words on the matter to Nigel Morland. Abberline was a former Chief Inspector, and his talent was in demand by the Pinkerton Agency's European Branch who eventually did hire him. I'd listen to his final conclusion which he gave to Morland.
His words were "You'd have to look for (the Ripper) not at the bottom of London Society at the time but a long way up." The words he chose included the "at the time" reference. Meaning you wouldn't have found him in the high society of London before or after 1888. |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 77
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
MJ - surely Abberline's words mean you WOULD have found him "long way up" during the years around 1888!! |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 72
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 11:23 pm: |
|
I'll retract my last sentence since it's true that Abberline never did elaborate on a specific time frame. If I had to bet though, my money would be on the belief that Abberline felt the Ripper played a limited engagement in the upper society of London. |
Jeff leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 9:06 am: |
|
Hi all
I'm still trying to get my head round two basic ideas about Jack. Was he a man on the street who learned his craft as he went along, by trial and error, or did he know exactly what he was doing and what he wanted the night he killed Poly Nichols.
The problem with the ripper case is the number of seeming contradictions. Dr Philips was by far the best coronor working on the case. Bonds reports are far less detailed. He obviously thought the ripper had some skill.
I was interested in what Frank said. What evidence is there that killers who take organs require skill or knowledge? If I or you opened up someone with a knife, grouped around in the dark, and hacked off bits we felt had a shape (random) How would we do? Could we just pick it up by chance because we were looking for trophies or would we need to know what were looking for?
Other Killers with no knowledge must have tried this, which is probably easier than some one setting up an experiement with a chicken.
For me Jack was not an expert but I think we need to take Dr Phillips very seriously.
Jeff |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
It's a bit possible that this ripper had a criminal background.A burglar or a thief maybe,or both,etc.He knows the neighborhood,he needs to know the police beats (natural to his way of living),operates at night,gauging danger(seen by the Lawende trio,and Elizabeth Long at sunrise),probably knows some hideouts.
Confident too it seems.After being seen by the Lawende trio and Elizabeth Long at sunrise
This guy is lucky.Too lucky?
The Mitre Square and Chapman murder probably showed his experience.(close to precision?)
In other areas the more skillfull and experienced the player the luckier it seems they are.
|
Dennis..Australia
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 7:24 pm: |
|
Folks
If we take the Eddowes witness statement we can confirm a lower class culprit. Kelly was worried about the Ripper. Did she normally entertain in the street like other 'unfortunates' and merely live at Miller's Court?
It can be surmised that to allow someone inside, at that time, she would have leaned towards a known client - a local, not an outsider.
If Hutchinson is not lying, his person still may not have been Jack.
As\stated earlier the large bulk of these types are loners and losers. There are exceptions such as the doctor in England a few years ago and the Pakistan man as reported in this thread.
It is interesting that the two typical Jack murders were women who used the name Kelly.
Dennis
Australia
|
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:24 pm: |
|
It's a bit possible that this ripper had a criminal background.A burglar or a thief maybe,or both,etc.He knows the neighborhood,he needs to know the police beats (natural to his way of living),operates at night,gauging danger(seen by the Lawende trio,and Elizabeth Long at sunrise),probably knows some hideouts.
The Mitre Square and Chapman murder probably showed his experience.(close to precision?)
In other areas the more skillfull and experienced the player the luckier it seems they are.
|
mr poster 2
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
Hello Phil Hill
You have a point. But as a physicist bevity is my trade so I better elaborate.
The arguments for the killer being "middle class" could include:
1. If it is assumed the killer was in disguise, it is easier and therfore more probable for a "toff" to imitate a working class man than vice versa.
2. None of the victims had any money worth speaking of when found. The possibilities are that the victim was paid in advance and the money taken back after death or the money was promised but not paid. The former implies that a killer who had taken his prize (organs) then searched the body for his thrupenny bit. This does not seem logical. The second implies that the money was promised. I cannot imagine a seasoned street walker going into a dark place with a stranger and not getting the money up front unless she was sure of an ability to pay or perceived the client to be trustworthy. This second possibility implies that the victim perceived the killer to be trustworthy or affluent which implies the killer was of, or could project characteristics of, a certain breeding or class.
3. Mary Kelly took him back to her room instead of giving him the more usual "thrupenny upright". If he was going back to her room, she must have thought he was worth the extra trouble. Again, implies she perceived him as more wealthy, more reliable, safer etc. etc.
4. Even Abberline admitted that the Ripper had cleared the streets due to fear. Yet the Ripper could procure women even at the height of the drought, presumably by offering a bit more money ?
5. The fact remains that G. Hutchinson (regarded as a reliable witness by Abberline) reckoned the client he saw was a little better off than many. The probability of a working class man being able to afford to dress as a toff is low.
My earlier point remains valid. Serial killers often take pride in their achievements. They write letters to the police, they follow a characteristic modus operandi, they garner media attention through the horror of their crimes etc etc (such as the Zodiac killer). In the Rippers case we have chalked messages on wall, escalation of the horror to Penny Dreadful levels, a brazenness that suggests a certain "flamboyancy". The fame going with being arrested for a Ripper crime must surely have seemed attractive to a denizen of the East End. And drinking was the social pastime of the day. So the probability of a drunken admission of the crime by a working class perpetrator is not only possible but probable had the killer been a working class man. Whether or not the admission would have reached the ears of the law is subject to the vagaries of chance. The Ripper appears to be of the "Mission From God" type of killer and it is only natural that he would want the world to know of this great thing he had done (cleansing the streets of prostitutes?). Of course maybe he had no fixation with prostitutes and they were just easy victims.
With respect to the comment, "would an immigrant jew ....". The East End supported a vast number of drinking dens, pubs and prostitutes. The balance of probabilities therefore suggests that the majority of people in the area at the time enjoyed a drink or two and that there was enough of a prostitute client base to support the number that worked there. Therefore, it is most probable that the killer enjoyed a drink. And used prostitutes occasionally. Dublin (home town) has a huge number of pubs. It is logical to say therefore that the majority of Dubliners enjoy a drink. Therefore the arguement remains valid that it is possible and maybe probable that the identity of the Ripper was at some point shouted out by a drunk in the corner. East Enders were as varied as any other population. But the majority were as I have suggested. People who liked a few drinks. General thinking is what serial killer profiling is based on. People who do "a" generally tend to like "b" and generally frequent "c". The Ripper will never be identified by counting the buttons on Mary Kellys boots, rather by identifying gerneralities and establishing probabilities. But its probably too late for that.
With respect to the slaughterman theory. I have this to say. My grandfather was a "knacker man" and I spent many happy days splashing around at his place of work. The slaughtermans job was to kill the beast then eviscerate it and tidy it up before the butcher (or his boy) came around to collect the carcass. I have never met a knacker man who could identify anything more than the intestines as they "smell when you step in 'em". They were paid by the carcass and the only interest in offal was to get it out and into the barrel as quick as possible. It was the butcher who sorted it out into protions for sale. To extrapolate a vague knowledge of bovine anatomy into any level of knowledge of human anatomy is a little dubious. Second, a slaughterman tends to use big knives with a flat back. A Jewish kosher slaughterman uses chalafim. Both are fairly distinct knives. The point I am making is that I cannot understand why with all our wonderful technology, someboby cannot come up with a fairly concrete suggestion as to the knife type used by working with the autopsy photos of the victims. Do the corpses of the victims exist anymore? Would exhumation and analysis of marks on the bones offer any insight?
The removal of the kidney from the front of the victim displayed either luck or some skill. If you take a lamb, turn off the lights, and try and take out a kidney from the belly side you will quickly find that it is not easy at all. And it has no clothes, is not twitching in spasms and has not spoken to you recently.
Alternatively, the butchering of Mary Kelly was just that. There does not seem to be any of the thoroughness that a medical man might be expected to conduct such an action with. A mad medical man on the other hand................
Personally I think that the killer was in all probability working class despite the arguements above. I base this on the Parsiminony Principle: the simplest answer is the most likely. The simplest being that the killer was a deranged man of the area with a penchant for killing prostitutes and a certain fascination in the female organs of generation. |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 79
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Mr Poster, thanks for your detailed response, but I remain unconvinced by your rebuttal of my argument, I'm afraid.
To take your points in the order raised:
I am not sure that it wiould have been as easy for a well-educated, upper class man to imitate an East End accent so well or so easily. How would he have learned and practised? More importantly,in an era when accemts were much more marked than today and associated with social classes and small areas (see Pygmalion and Prof. Higgins for an exaggerated take on that) could someone have got away with it? I think it might have aroused more suspicion than trust!!
On money - your point is possible, but since we don't know exactly how/when JtR struck during the encounter, we cannot say whether they ever got to such an exchange. maybe it was as he supposedly reached for the coins that he pulled out the knife!!
Dis MJK "do" thrupenny uprights? She, unlike her tragic sisters in immortality had a room.
"...Yet the Ripper could procure women even at the height of the drought...". Or because he was someone the women thought they could trust, or they were desperate. Note that, notwithstanding our hindsight view of the panic, the three Jews who saw Eddowes with a man do not appear to have jumped to conclusions that he must be JtR. It suggests to me that plenty of activity of that kind was still going on.
Hutchinson's evidence may well be constructed out of whole cloth. Interestingly, if you analyse the description, it is NOT that of a "toff" - either in detail (spats worn after midday. It strikes more as a working man's idea of what a rich man might wear. At most he saw a prosperous merchant. Middle class had a distinct meaning in late Victorian Britain which is different to its meaning today and since 1945 (for instance).
"...the probability of a drunken admission of the crime by a working class perpetrator is not only possible but probable had the killer been a working class man."
But surely there were loads of such admissions, just not taken seriously.
The devil being in the detail, I'd still like reliable evidence on the drinking habits of immigrant Jews in 1888.
VERY interesting stuff on knackermen, by the way. Thanks for that insightful background.
Nice to know we agree on the likelihood of a working class Ripper after all though.
Nice to meet you,
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1539
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Hi Phil and Mr Poster,
With regards to JtR being middle class etc.My first thoughts have been towards a local working class man, his clear user- type knowledge of the alleys,yards,tenement buildings,the "sleeping rough" habits of homeless women such as Martha Tabram[my view is that she was a ripper victim],the accessibility of the abode of Mary Kelly and of various
houses where "business" went on eg Hanbury Street etc and what appears to be a good knowledge of the whole Whitechapel area.Add to this that for whatever reason he seems to have been acceptable to the prostitutes as a client-and the solution
appears to point away from a non local person who would be unlikely to blend in.
But the evidence we have from the crime scenes
themselves seems to me at anyrate to be the work of someone who has carefully planned and staged these events-through previous watching of the area/stalking the women on previous nights etc
and planning how to kill the women as silently and efficiently as possible and perform the mutilations so that he had little chance of being caught covered in blood.The mutilations themselves telling us that in the mid term murders at least he knew exactly how he wanted to mutilate and which organs he wanted for trophies and how to obtain them in the dark.
To me this looks like a man who had anatomical knowledge and a degree of self discipline.
Its not true that middle class men didnt go to Whitechapel and pick up Prostitutes.St Botolph"s Church was just such a pick up point for top hatted punters.And it was here that Kate Eddowes seemed to be heading that night.
Finally there does seem to be some kind of clue emerging from several of the police chiefs involved-a consensus[apart from Anderson/Swanson]
that the ripper murders were the work of someone who was from a middle class or political even-background.Machnaghten favoured Druitt;Major Henry smith poured scorn on anderson"s memoirs and his implication of Jewish suspects.Abberline talked about "having to look for him[the ripper]"a long way up in Society"-this towards the end of his career in crime and Monroe came out with the astonishing remark that it [the ripper case]was a "political hot potato".I think its worth dwelling on their comments.Its also worth finding out if possible what exactly Monroe meant by this remark.
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 83
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 3:42 am: |
|
IMHO we need to be careful here. The Munro "political hot potato" comment could relate to a Fenian link which would be directly "political". I don't think he would have used that phrase, for instance, of a royal or a Government conspiracy connection. "Sensitive" would be a better word for the latter cases.
"Political" could also relate to any suspicion on his part that divisions within and between the Home Office (Matthews a politician) and Scotland Yard (Warren a political appointee) had hampered the investigation. Don't forget Munro was anti-Warren and pro-Matthews so had internal "political" fish of his own to fry.
Contrary to your arguments, Natalie - Anderson and Swanson (both VERY well placed to know) pointed at "Kosminski", a Polish Jew and working class.
Abberline made many, contradictory, comments (so why pick one) - Chapman was certainly not a "long way up".
The more I have thought about some of the questions I posed in another thread, the more I come back to Jack having deep local familiarity and knowledge. I think he knew Bucks Row, Mitre Square, the yard at 29 Hanbury street, Millers Court. This was HIS territory.
So, when the women led him to those places (and I am sure they did - if only because that would have made them feel more secure and allayed any fears - he knew where he was going. A "stranger" would not have known and would inevitably have lost an element of his control of the situation. I simply don't think Jack would have allowed that.
I was also reminded in some reading recently, that it is thought Sadler may have been set up for a "mugging" by Frances Coles. Now a man less familiar with the East End than I think Jack was, might have been very fearful of being set up in that way - whether he wore disguise of not.
All this puts me firmly in the working class camp - but, I wouldn't rule out Druitt or someone like him, if there was evidence to show it likely. We are balancing probablities here, not proofs of anything.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1540
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:57 am: |
|
I agree Phil with most of your post and like you remain open minded as to whether Druitt or another similar might be JtR.
regarding the comment made by Monro,I think he said,"Its a hot potato"-not a "political hot potato".I think its others since who have tried to make sense of the phrase in the context of Jack
the Ripper that have offered a political link via the Knives found and the Phoenix Park murders.
Regarding Anderson-he painted a very confusing portrait of a man whom he said had died soon after admission to an asylum and as we now know Kosminski was not that man.
Abberline appears to have changed his mind as he grew older and come to believe,like Sims the journalist friend of Machnaghten that the ripper "was a long way up" the social ladder.
Smith ridiculed Anderson over the entire "Jewish suspect" issue.
Walter Dew thought you might have to look among the upper strata for him----but on the other hand confessed [at the same time]to not having much of an idea who he was and this was some forty or fifty years after the events!
Its all baffling.
On the one hand it would seem just as you say to have been a local man with some anatomical knowledge.On the other the police at the time,with the exception of Anderson and Swanson appear to have thought otherwise.Nobody knew for certain it appears.
Why I thought the ripper himself might have bee
somewhat interested in politics or perhaps a religious maniac is because 29 Hanbury Street is directly opposite a very famous East End meeting Hall.Charles Dickens[earlier]gave readings there,all the people who spoke at the Berner Street Club----William Morris,East End Jewish radicals,Annie Bessant,Eleanor Marx, GBShaw,and many other famous names from the labour movement spoke there at large meetings about trade unionism,the setting up of the Labour Party etc
and who knows these meetings may have attracted the attention of any number of middle class do gooders from both religious persuasion and political persuasion.Its strange that in the case of Berner Street it was in the yard of a meeting House for radicals Jews and socialists, in the case of Mitre Square,that same night,it was adjacent to The Imperial Club which was being kept watch on for signs of insurgent activity thought to be being planned there,and the Hanbury Street murder was opposite just such another club-not particularly Jewish but radical/socialist-among other things.In each case meetings,"clubbing "in the sense of 1888 of course] singing and dancing went on well into the night....
Natalie
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 85
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
Only one point Natalie - I did NOT intend to imply (at least as my personal view) that JtR had ANY anatomical, surgical or medical knowledge at all. I don't think he had. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3020
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Jeff,
"I'm still trying to get my head round two basic ideas about Jack. Was he a man on the street who learned his craft as he went along, by trial and error, or did he know exactly what he was doing and what he wanted the night he killed Poly Nichols."
None of us can say, but I would assume a little of both. In my belief the Ripper had his mind set on abdominal mutilations and targeting the area around the womb right from the beginning. I think that was his whole purpose of his actions, and in order to get sexual gratification. Prior to this there is need to take for granted that he was ivolved in knife murders in an evolving and developing style.
"Other Killers with no knowledge must have tried this, which is probably easier than some one setting up an experiement with a chicken."
And they have. That is what is problematic with the assumption that someone with medical or surgical knowledge must have done it. We have several examples of mutilation murders, involving trophee-taking, where the murderer (mostly disorganized) is academically unskilled and has no medical training or knowledge whatsoever. Actually, this is most often the case. This doesen't mean that a medical man couldn't have done it, but it is a mistake to take this for granted, when a large number of cases shows the opposite.
zxcter,
"It's a bit possible that this ripper had a criminal background.A burglar or a thief maybe,or both,etc.He knows the neighborhood,he needs to know the police beats (natural to his way of living),operates at night,gauging danger(seen by the Lawende trio,and Elizabeth Long at sunrise),probably knows some hideouts."
I think that is absolutely possible (although I am rather doubtful about the "gang" bit). Before these mutilation murders, I'd say we could find him as a thief, robber and a violent and weird character in general, probably also with being guilty of indecent behaviour. And probably with a prior crime record in connection with those kinds of offenses. But that is just what I believe.
Dennis,
"It is interesting that the two typical Jack murders were women who used the name Kelly."
Well, this is of course a matter of opinion and interpretation, but I would hardly call Mary kelly a "typical" Ripper victim. Personally, I beg to differ on that one.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3021
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
mr poster 2,
Thanks for the interesting elaboration on the slaughterman/physics part. I can see where you're coming from regarding the slaughterman theory and it is interesting points. Although I know that you -- like Phil and myself -- deduce that the Ripper probably was a local working class individual, let me nevertheless add a few things to your points.
In contrast to your description above, I know slaughtermen who know every anatomical piece on the animal, and who also -- academically unskilled -- are equally up to date on human anatomy (and as a local historian I have also come across descriptions of the skills of slaughtermen during the 19th century), where they seem to have quite a fundamental and thorough knowledge of body parts and organs, and at the same time belonging working class.
In my opinion, all it took for the Ripper would have had to posses a curiousity about the female organs that exceeded the limit for being sane and healthy.
As I said in my post above, a large part of similar mutilation murders involving trophee-taking -- if not most of them -- has (of those we know of) been perpetrated by unskilled and more or less twisted characters, with no medical experience or academical skill whatsoever.
If this is relevant in the Ripper case or not, is hard to say, but it can't be disputed. True crime and crime history is littered with these examples.
"2. None of the victims had any money worth speaking of when found. The possibilities are that the victim was paid in advance and the money taken back after death or the money was promised but not paid. The former implies that a killer who had taken his prize (organs) then searched the body for his thrupenny bit. This does not seem logical."
Well, logic is quite hard to apply on the actions of a killer like this. Robbery is not totally uncommon or non-existent in connection with these types of murders. One theory is that the sexual gratification and the real price lie in the mutilations, but that the money is taken back after the deed, because they were only meant to make the victim feel secure and that he really didn't think she was worth it -- a sign of contempt for the victim, as you will. Just because the murder is based on sexual gratification doesen't mean that it also can include robbery as a secondary element.
"3. Mary Kelly took him back to her room instead of giving him the more usual "thrupenny upright". If he was going back to her room, she must have thought he was worth the extra trouble. Again, implies she perceived him as more wealthy, more reliable, safer etc. etc."
No, it does not.
All it show is that Mary Kelly -- in contrast to many of her "collegues" (although probably not the only one) -- had a room of her own. Why this should indicate that she had more wealthy clients goes beyond me. It is possible that she had a lot of returning clients, though, considering she was young and allegedly attractive.
"4. Even Abberline admitted that the Ripper had cleared the streets due to fear. Yet the Ripper could procure women even at the height of the drought, presumably by offering a bit more money ?"
Which is not surprising at all, considering the women were desperate. Several stated that they were afraid of the Ripper but they had no choice but to continue anyway. This was simply a result of their hopeless and destitute situation. They didn't need to be tempted by anyone with more money than usual.
"Serial killers often take pride in their achievements. They write letters to the police, they follow a characteristic modus operandi, they garner media attention through the horror of their crimes etc etc (such as the Zodiac killer). In the Rippers case we have chalked messages on wall, escalation of the horror to Penny Dreadful levels, a brazenness that suggests a certain "flamboyancy"."
This is a misconception. Not all serial killers do this and not all serial killers are flamboyant. And I really see no flamboyancy in connection with the Ripper murders. This is my personal opinion, but the letters and the chalk message most certainly in my mind did not derive from the killer.
"5. The fact remains that G. Hutchinson (regarded as a reliable witness by Abberline) reckoned the client he saw was a little better off than many. The probability of a working class man being able to afford to dress as a toff is low."
Very little indicate that this man actually existed and I believe he didn't. Hutchinson's testimony can't be relied on as a valuable source of information in order to make further deductions. I believe he played Abberline on parts of his testimony.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 460
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
Hi mr poster and Glenn,
“Well, logic is quite hard to apply on the actions of a killer like this. Robbery is not totally uncommon or non-existent in connection with these types of murders. One theory is that the sexual gratification and the real price lie in the mutilations, but that the money is taken back after the deed, because they were only meant to make the victim feel secure and that he really didn't think she was worth it -- a sign of contempt for the victim, as you will. Just because the murder is based on sexual gratification doesen't mean that it also can include robbery as a secondary element.”
Good point, Glenn. IMHO Jack the Ripper (strangely enough to us normal people) may very well have been disgusted and offended by the fact that these women sold their bodies in return for money.
Like I implied on other threads, the crime scene facts of Nichols’ bonnet and the pockets and belongings of Chapman and Eddowes may be explained by the notion that Jack the Ripper attacked his victims while they were getting ready to put money away, were in the act of putting it away or had already put it away and that he wanted to take it back and did so. A bonnet seems to have been the place where women sometimes put their valuables.
"Serial killers often take pride in their achievements. They write letters to the police, they follow a characteristic modus operandi, they garner media attention through the horror of their crimes etc etc (such as the Zodiac killer). In the Rippers case we have chalked messages on wall, escalation of the horror to Penny Dreadful levels, a brazenness that suggests a certain "flamboyancy"."
Again, I agree with Glenn here. Four out of the five mutilating murderers that I know of weren’t particularly proud of their achievements. In fact, pride doesn’t seem to have been on their minds at all. They were loners who didn’t really care for the outside world. The only one who wrote letters was Lucian Staniak, the ‘Red Spider’. Four out of five were diagnosed schizophrenic (Staniak being one of them, by the way).
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 461
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
A thing I forgot to add is that it's a rule rather than an exception for hoaxers (in making calls or writing letters) to go with serial killer cases. The Jack the Ripper case was no exception.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3022
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
Hi Frank!
How are you?
I just have to correct myself on one of my points above (because of a typo error), although I noticed that you understood what I meant anyway:
"Just because the murder is based on sexual gratification doesen't mean that it also can include robbery as a secondary element"
shall naturally say:
"Just because the murder is based on sexual gratification doesen't mean that it also can not include robbery as a secondary element."
Just for the sake of clarity, since I would be contradicting myself otherwise. 
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 86
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
Glenn, you wrote: ...In my belief the Ripper had his mind set on abdominal mutilations and targeting the area around the womb right from the beginning. I think that was his whole purpose of his actions, and in order to get sexual gratification...
I very rarely disagree with you, but on this I do.
I have no firm view on this, and am certainly no expert, but I can conceive of a "Jack" who:
a) started out with just some feeling he couldn't express against women;
b) may have been involved in petty crime;
c) in an attack - maybe on Millwood or Wilson - struck out with a knife and found himself excited by the feelings it gave him. Maybe the excitement of the risks involved are part of it, but he feels good.
So he broods on what he did, plans something more, and finds Tabram after the soldier has left her. She is drunk and easy prey. But he has not worked out what he wants to do - he stabs and stabs again in a freny of excitement. He kills her - feeling power in doing so - but afterwards something is missing.
He broods again, something was not right - he realises that in his excitement and frenzy with Tabram he forgot that he could have done things to her "parts".
So, he thinks things through and after a while he goes out again and finds Polly Nichols drunk. Easy prey again. She leads him to a deserted backstreet. This time he does push up her skirts and mutilate her but he hears footsteps and has to scarper fast...
Again excitement, but afterwards realistaion that if he could mutilate, he could open her up.
And so, very soon afterwards, when he finds Annie Chapman, ill and tipsy, he indulges himself, and his "mature" style is born.
With Cathy Eddowes he does the same, but when he finds himself with a pretty victim, indoors and with more time, he can really take her apart...
As I say, no evidence, bt I think there is a logical development for a man with perverse tastes and longings for which he has no words, to take a while to find out what those are...
Hope this is not too distasteful. I hated writing it, but it was the only way I could find to make clear what i am trying to say.
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3023
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
I have gone over this several times before, but I'll repeat it again.
I can very well accept your assumptions regarding a) and b). Regarding the petty crimes thing, this I myself stated in one of my posts above ("Before these mutilation murders, I'd say we could find him as a thief, robber and a violent and weird character in general, probably also with being guilty of indecent behaviour. And probably with a prior crime record in connection with those kinds of offenses.").
I can't say that our notions regarding c) is wrong -- those are the notions that we popularly attribute to the Ripper, the traits of an evolving killer who step by step makes his trial and error knife murder attempts before escalating into mutilations.
However, I think this notion is clearly over-eated and too easily accepted and not challenged to a sufficient degree.
Several killers of this kind have on occasion been known to start out of nowhere from petty crimes and indecent behaviour to extreme mutilation murders with no knife experimentation murders in between.
To automatically assume that all serial killers of Jack the Ripper's type are created through such logical developments and traits is a mistake and a simplification based on generalisations.
I can't prove it and I can't state anything with certainty, but from where I sit there are serious doubts regarding Millwood and Tabram, and I don't really believe them to be Ripper victims. There are minor signs of quite natural progressions between the three victims that I count as true canonicals -- Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes (escalating with the facial cuts in Eddowes face) -- but I see no real link to the other previous murder attacks.
This is of course all personal interpretation -- heck for all we know, the Ripper could have murdered three women but he could also have murdered the whole lot! -- but it is not wise to base any notions on mistreated generalisations that not necessarily fits all disorganized serial killers; because there are those that starts to mutilate out of nowhere. Serial killers doesen't always follow a logical pattern of developments or fits our preferred paint-by-number manuals.
This we can argue until next Christmas and we will still not get anywhere or closer to the truth, but in my opinion there is no reason to automatically accept the idea of the early Ripper as an serious killer murdering people just for the sake of it. What usually drives people as the Ripper, is sexual gratification and fantasies, and the mutilations are a key to this. Not the killing as such. The Whitechapel women led a dangerous life, belonged to one of the most vulnerable and defenseless categories and were subjected to all sorts of dangers every night -- as they are today.
It is my opinion and I am not prepare to argue with people about it -- we will never know for sure anyway. But some deductions are just too easily accepted as truth and canons; people can buy that if they want to, and speculate from it without questioning this concept. I prefer not to.
But if anyone believes themselves to have the key to and absolute insight of how serial killers work, please enlighten me.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 29, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:02 am: |
|
Hello everybody
Just two points. Does anyone know for certain what organs were taken from MJK?
The reason I ask is that the removal of the kidney always struck me as strange. I can sort of understand someone wanting or having a fixation on regenerative organs but a kidney? If he wasnt after the kidney, is it possible he mistook it for an ovary? Unlikely I know but if he had gained his knowledge from the texts of the day, it is just possible he was looking for an ovary. Which would indicate a lack of knowledge rather than a surfeit. The way he took out the uterus seemd like a man who was cutting off as much as he could in the hope of getting the uterus. But it was OK if he a bit extra here and there in the process. Would a medical man not have been fairly precise in the cutting? Even in haste?
Just when I saw the word Fenian above, I thought of something. I read a book recently on the history of South Armagh where they were describing some Fenian/nationalist atrocities from the 1700's and early 1800's (I do not know if the name Fenian was in use then). And they seemed to involve a lot of face cutting of a fairly intricate nature. Removal of noses, eyes, etc. Then you look at the picture of MJK and wonder.......
But I agree that it was probably a working class man. But would still like to see work done if possible (probably not) on the marks made on the vertebrae of the two victims whose heads were almost severed. The marks exist as Philips referred to them and a lot cvan be told nowadays from a few grooves in bone.
Mr Poster
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1542
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
I dont know much about other serial killers but the ripper does seem to me to have been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
There are certain bizarre markings on Catherine Eddowes face-the inverted triangles for example
that indicate obsessions about symbols.Also the targetting of prostitutes could mean he believed he was under "command"from a higher power to eradicate the "evil" of prostitution.If his voices told him he had to carry out these mutilations his psychosis would fit a pattern of
reaching " burn out" when he got to the Kelly murder----by which time he would have been ready for the bin or committed suicide.If he had this illness he would have gone on killing with ever mounting frenzied mutilation.
I dont really think Phil that the sexual side of it came into it much at all.This wasnt ,IMHO,
a killer who got sexual kicks from his killings
where one thing led to another in a more or less intensified curve of normal sexual release,this was a crazed killer who believed in his work,wanted to display it -hence the open air theatre of a partially undressed woman who had[for example and following possibly his type of mad logic]had her reproductive organs removed for good-these being the "wages of sin" to him and his "commander".
JtR was in my view a very seriously mentally ill man.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3024
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Mr Poster,
One kidney and the most part of the womb was taken from Eddowes (the womb also seems to have been the main focus of his interest in the other two murder victims, Nichols and Chapman) -- so it was not just the kidney; the womb connection is still there.
As far as MJK, only the heart was removed and missing. The sources reveals that the heart was taken or removed, but if this means that the killer actually took it with him, has been argued a great deal. It probably was, but we can not tell for sure.
I also agree with Natalie's opinion about the Ripper being a seriously ill individual and possibly a paranoid schizofrenic, and probably at times and in certain situations rather stable and focused.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 29, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 462
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Hi again mr poster,
“The Ripper appears to be of the "Mission From God" type of killer and it is only natural that he would want the world to know of this great thing he had done (cleansing the streets of prostitutes?). Of course maybe he had no fixation with prostitutes and they were just easy victims.”
If the Ripper really was out on a mission from God, cleansing the streets of prostitutes, I think the only thing he did to let the world know of this great thing was what he did: kill and mutilate his victims the way he did. Like I said before, I think the Ripper was a loner and the type who didn’t care much for the outside world as he may have seen it, and as such I don’t think he would have had the need to let other people know what he had done.
“The removal of the kidney from the front of the victim displayed either luck or some skill. If you take a lamb, turn off the lights, and try and take out a kidney from the belly side you will quickly find that it is not easy at all. And it has no clothes, is not twitching in spasms and has not spoken to you recently.”
I don’t think that taking out a kidney from the belly side in the dark would be easy at all, but what you’re doing here is assume that the Ripper had specifically sought the kidney to take away with him. The fact that he succeeded in finding and removing the kidney in such an ill lighted place and under such enormous time pressure seems to support the idea that he just ‘stumbled’ upon it rather than that he had specifically sought it.
I’m very doubtful about whether the Ripper was influenced by the fact that any of his victims had just spoken to him. He probably hated women in general and may have been disgusted and offended by the behaviour of prostitutes in particular because of the fact that they sold themselves for money.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 87
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Glenn - I don't necessarily accept Tabram or the earlier (pre Nichols) as JtR victims in any unreserved way myself. I used them to illustrate a possible progression, nothing more.
Natalie - common sense suggests that - given the genital focus of many of the attacks - sexual motives may have played some part at least in the motive.
I am unconvinced of the "mission from God" explanation. I don't believe it of Peter Sutcliffe (the so-called Yorkshire Ripper) and without having a certain suspect or culprit, certainly won't of JtR himself. There are too many possibilities. Equally possible is a desire for a man scorned by all, humiliated and dismissed (and perhaps with deep uteral fixations or mother-complexes) to show he has power over someone else.
I think the drunken, and powerless state of many of the victims - Tabram (if she was); Nicols, Chapman and Eddowes certainly - plus their availability when JtR was "about" - maybe the key to why they specifically were killed.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1545
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Thats another possibility,Phil.However just because a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia focuses on the genital area doesnt mean that they are therefore experiencing something that can be compared to a normal person"s sexual arousal.It is very common indeed for the delusions of such a person to be manifesting themselves in what appears to us as obsession with sex and sexual imagery but it is more often the result of very repressed sexual
activity and delusion.Such a person would have little actual sexual inclination,may view women with disgust,be prurient if engaged in conversationabout sexual matters etc.I have encountered such individuals in a clinical setting
and it is easy to think they are "hung up" on all things to do with sex....but it isnt the sort of sex that most people would understand or have an inkling about.
Its always worth remembering as Glenn has pointed out, in a slightly different context,that the vast majority of such murders as the ripper committed are carried out by people with this illness.Also nearly all frenzied attacks that happen out of the blue and that we read about in newspapers are carried out by individuals who have either come off their medication to control this illness or who have become ill suddenly and killed before anyone realised what was happening.
I do take your point about Peter Sutcliffe but myself I see a different behaviour here.The Eddowes murder to me is the give away,where he is drawing fancy patterns on her face,which can be-symbolism understood only by the deluded person and a symptom of schizophrenic psychosis.
I must add that just because a person suffers from the illness talked about above doesnt mean that all or even most people who suffer from it will commit violent acts.This isnt the case at all----but it leads all the other mental illnesses we can suffer from in terms of its potential,untreated, for developing into a major delusional illness and sometimes, command murders.
But I agree.I dont think Sutcliffe was schizophrenic.I think he wanted people to believe he was so he could plead diminished responsibility.
Natalie
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 89
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Good post Natalie. I'm not sure I understand all of it, but good post.
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4005
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
I haven't made up my mind on working-class v middle-class. But do people find Harvey's pawn ticket a factor here?
She claimed that she left a ticket for a shawl, in for two shillings, at 13 room, and hadn't seen it since. Taken by the killer?
Robert |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 91
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
I think the whole question of the clothing - what remained (and who it belonged to), where it was; what if anything had been burned; and what might have been missing, is a topic worthy of detailed consideration.
In that context, the alleged pawn ticket might have added significance. It is, of course always possible that MJK had done something with the ticket.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1547
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Its a good point.Most unlikely it would have been taken by anyone with any money to spare.
I doubt though that much would have remained in that room without being trashed either by the fire or the blood that was everywhere.
Hi Phil,
I know a little about that illness because my mother worked in one of the big psychiatric hospitals in the North West as an Art Therapist
and I had the opportunity to replace her for a short time [some 5 or 6 weeks]when she was in hospital once.I read up on it all and still found the experience quite daunting but I was only 22 at the time and had just qualified to teach.
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 463
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 9:48 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
“I must add that just because a person suffers from the illness talked about above doesn’t mean that all or even most people who suffer from it will commit violent acts. This isn’t the case at all----“
I'd like to add that Paul Britton, a British forensic psychologist, once said that a murder wouldn't necessarily be caused by a mental disorder. As I’ve understood it, the intelligence of someone suffering from schizophrenia isn’t affected, it’s only perception that is distorted - certainly at first. Furthermore, most people suffering from schizophrenia are quite harmless to other people – if they are to harm anyone, it is most likely themselves.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3025
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Frank,
"As I’ve understood it, the intelligence of someone suffering from schizophrenia isn’t affected, it’s only perception that is distorted - certainly at first. Furthermore, most people suffering from schizophrenia are quite harmless to other people – if they are to harm anyone, it is most likely themselves."
Yes, but then we have paranoid schizofrenia, which actually is a highly represented group when it comes to violence and serial killing. Paranoid schizofrenics are actually more common than psychopats when it comes to disorganized and rather bizarre mutilation murders. They mostly stand out a bit as an odd person, but seldom enough in order to awake people's suspicions. They can be rather stabile, intelligent and cunning on occasion.
One of the best examples of an American paranoid schizofrenic serial killer I have come across so far is Hadden Clark, but we have also had several of them here in Sweden.
FBI profilers like Ressler say that 9 out of 10 serial killers are psychopaths, but they are completely wrong, if you look outside USA. What Britton have said about this -- and I like Britton -- I have no idea.
All the best
G. Andersson,author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1552
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
I am in total agreement with you here,Glenn,it seems as though there is a fairly big difference between GB and the States too.
Best Natalie
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 293
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Richard Chase is a great example of an American paranoid schizophrenic SK. His murders were very like Jack's.
Mags
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 464
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"Yes, but then we have paranoid schizofrenia, which actually is a highly represented group when it comes to violence and serial killing."
You're complete right, Glenn. I just added that comment so that people wouldn't get the wrong idea about schizophrenics in general. Patients suffering from paranoid schizophrenia are the ones who can be very dangerous to other people. Besides that, I had just come down from the pub when I wrote my last post. 
"What Britton have said about this -- and I like Britton -- I have no idea."
Neither have I. Regarding profiling, the whole approach is different in both countries. As far as I know American profilers aren't trained as psychologists and they tend to generalise, trying to differentiate between organized and disorganized, while British profilers do have a degree in psychology and tend to treat each and every case as a new and separate one, without looking too much to other cases.
The five mutilating killers I was talking about earlier were Richard Trenton Chase, Robert Clive Napper, Lucian Staniak, Andrei Chikatilo and William MacDonald (or Allan Ginsberg). Although he preyed on male victims, this last one reminds me a lot of the Ripper case. Like in the Ripper case, there’s even a John McCarthy involved! If anyone’s interested in knowing more about him, here’s a link: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/macdonald/index_1.html.
By the way, I'm fine Glenn, thanks for asking!
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 465
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
Hi Mags,
"Richard Chase is a great example of an American paranoid schizophrenic SK. His murders were very like Jack's."
Indeed his murders were Mags, but if the Ripper suffered from paranoid schizophrenia as well, which I'm inclined to think he did, I don't think the Ripper suffered from such a severe case of that mental illness. Why? Because at the time of his murders, Richard Chase was what most people might describe as a raving lunatic and I don't think the Ripper was that far 'gone'. If he had been, I think he would have been noticed.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 11:22 pm: |
|
"The removal of the kidney from the front of the victim displayed either luck or some skill. If you take a lamb, turn off the lights, and try and take out a kidney from the belly side you will quickly find that it is not easy at all. And it has no clothes, is not twitching in spasms and has not spoken to you recently. "
I've got a question, as I've never considered this: would a doctor operating on a kidney typically go through the back? Is that easier or quicker?
At first blush, it seems like a stupid question, but I once had spinal disc surgery on the back of my neck, and the surgeons went in through the front of my throat. I'd have thought it'd be easier and more direct through the back of the neck, but nooooooooo..........
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
You're better off asking a doctor, but I think there's a procedure where they come in from the front and remove a lower rib to do it.
Strangely enough, when my kidney was stolen from me in Vegas, they went in from the back. Amateurs.
Cheers,
Dave |
mr poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 4:29 am: |
|
Hello Frank van Oploo
I agree about the kidney. Its a very distinctive organ as it has a definite shape, feels smooth, can be gripped with all the fingers and is the sort of thing fingers would "feel" if groping about in there. So I do agree the kidney was just a lucky dip sort of thing.
The cuts on Eddowes face seem to me to be someone unfamiliar with cutting a face up. A few zig zags here and there, take off the nose etc. Like a child doodling. Exploratory cuts and disfigurement. Of little symbolic significance I would imagine despite Mr Knights theorising some years ago. The face is a limited canvas and there are limited things that can be done with a knife to it in the dark. The cuts under the eyes are logical as the creases there allow the point of the knife to follow them The cheeks are the only really fleshy parts of the face. Fancy curves cannot be drawn on a face with a pointy knife. Pretty much only geometric shapes and lines which is what we see in essence. So I cannot see any symbolism there. IF a man wants to make symbols then the chest is the logical place to go for. Of course the MJK cutting was in a different league althogether.
With respect to MJK not being throttled first. If we assume the throttling to be an act devoted to silencing the woman, then maybe he just thought it unnecssary as they were indoors or something or that he could surprise MJK enough becuase of the different situation (to the others)?
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 300
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Hi, Frank-
I'm not sure if I think he was a paranoid schizophrenic or sane but deviant (the only 2 possibilities for me) but if he was P-S then he wasn't as badly off as Chase.Still. it is possible to be quite in the throes of the disease and to function well enough most of the time. I base this on close observaton of a family member who has suffered from this mental illness since the early 70's and who initially was violent and has bouts of violence every once in a while still. The violence seems to be directed at his mother or any woman he thinks is acting in the same kind of role as her.Make of that what you will.
Mags
|
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Over time these women victims were the ones that populated and 'formed" in his sick mind.He must have been living in their midst.They became his "ideal".So I think he's lower-class. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 474
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 7:52 pm: |
|
Hi Mags,
Somehow I hadn't seen your post there before. Interesting what you write about your family member (although it's sad of course!). This is how I've been seeing JtR for some time now, as paranoid or a paranoid schizophrenic or something similar, but able to function well enough most of the time. Thanks for sharing that.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page