|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sulley Mulley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 4:53 am: | 
|
Many theorists, detectives , ect have stated that the ripper could be a lone psyco with sexual problems or just mental problems like shcizoprenia.I even read an FBI report saying this was probably the case.I dont purport to have the same qualifications , but the very obvious is that this conclusion is blatantly wrong.In a sea of conjecture I am only using hard facts to establish that the Whitechappell murderer had an agenda.I would like to put forward these iron clad points.
- HE HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE CORPSES-Every other serial killer ever , US , UK , Europe , I could not find one who has not in some way tried to conceal the corpses. Some have been pathetic attempts , placed corpses behind a tree , in a creek , loose burial, Gasey's lame attempt to stuff his corpses under the house, ect.They have all attempted in some way to conceal.Their motive or agenda is to satisfy themselves , due to their deep psycological problems - they dont want or care if the press gets onto the story.If any polieman or detective can tell me if there has been a lone psyco who has done what the Whitechappel murderer did or what I have written is incorrect - please tell me.
* THESE MURDERS WERE RITUALISTIC OR HAD A POINT
- the pros had there intestines and other inards removed and placed outside the body.I have looked at literally hundreds of groups , freemasons, canibals , incas , tribes , gangs (drug or crime related), ect. When carring out a mutilation such as this - THEY HAD AN AGENDA , THATS RIGHT A PURPOSE.
- THE FINAL VICTEM HAD HER HEART REMOVED - this is the most overlooked point in history.This is a very personal thing to do. My study of tribes , indians , incas, crime gangs indicates this is a sacred , personal , ritualistic procedure saved for only the few.People in normal day life use this saying now in jest, eg - if you touch my glasses i will cut your heart out. The ripper had an agenda folks!
- NOW IT IS TIME TO PUT THESE 2 POINTS TOGETHER FOLKS
He has deliberatly not concealed the corpse knowing the press will give it a bath. There is no chance his message wont be noticed. He has used personal , ritualistis mutilations to covey his message.
Let us now start looking at suspects with an agenda: Barnett, Gull and Netly, possable gang. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Dear Sulley,
I'm afraid you are way off base here. There have been many multiple killers who have made no attempt to hide their victims bodies, ie leave them where they could easily be seen.
Indeed open display of victims bodies is a well accepted signature for many killers.
Removal of a victims heart is not unusual. Often the killer has no idea of what he is removing, he just reaches in grabs something, slashes it free and there you are.
We had a case not so long ago in North Wales where an elderly woman was murdered and had her heart removed.
I think the best thing you can do is to go back to your research again and see where the facts take you.
At the moment you seem to have an idea and are dismissing anything which doesn't fit in with your theory.
Also what exactly do you mean by an 'agenda'? I know its a very hip word but is meaningless. To a Frenchman an agenda is a pocket diary, to an Englishman a list of items to be covered in a meeting!
Your posting would also improve if you took a little time to try and get your spelling right ( I know I often make mistakes of this nature but they are usually genuine mistakes - not a result of sloppiness) and try at least to marshall your thoughts so we can understand what you are trying to say.
For example:
"Many theorists, detectives , ect have stated that the ripper could be a lone psyco with sexual problems or just mental problems like shcizoprenia.I even read an FBI report saying this was probably the case.I dont purport to have the same qualifications , but the very obvious is that this conclusion is blatantly wrong"
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
You may think I am nit picking here, but believe me if you just come out with a meaningless jumble of miss spelt words, peppered with one or two buzz words, no one will even bother to read your post which would be a shame.
Bob |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 210
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
Dear Sulley...
Although I agree with the premise of an agenda [ a desire on the part of JTR to gain some supernatural ability, in my suspect's case..], it appears you are casting a wide net which is a little confusing.
Who knows which suspect didn't have an agenda ?
Maybe you could elaborate on those you think do...
How |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 506
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
I saw a TV drama last nite where a series of bank robberies had the purpose of creating a diversion. The robbers wanted to steal information from the bank's computers, not money from the cash drawer. So they staged a very scary robbery and while everyone was staring at the robbers who were demanding that the teller give them the contents of the cash drawer an accomplice got at the computer and wasn't even noticed.
If the doings of JTR were a diversion they certainly were very effective. The obvious question is what could he possibly have been trying to divert attention from? With Nichols maybe the fires, but with all the others I don't have a clue. Of course, if I'm right then the killings had their intended effect because the other thing went totally unnoticed. What else was going on then? What else was put on the back burner because of the killings? The only thing that might give this theory any credence is that the killings were so dramatic and attention grabbing. If that was what JTR was trying to do then he did a great job of it. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 466
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 6:39 pm: |
|
Hi Sulley,
You wrote: “- HE HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE CORPSES-“
The Ripper may not have been the type to be thinking ahead too much to try and find women who had a place of their own, like he may have done with Mary Jane Kelly. So, he preyed on women in the streets. The thing that obviously gave him his kicks were the mutilations. To be able to work as long as possible on the mutilations to get as much satisfaction from them as possible, he needed to subdue or kill his victims as quickly as he could, knowing that someone could walk in on him at any moment. The Ripper probably kept on mutilating until he thought it was no longer safe and then got the hell out of there, not wanting to waste precious ‘mutilating time’ on trying to conceal the body.
Another thing is, where on earth in this very densely populated part of London could he have concealed those bodies in the first place?
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 297
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Well, of course he "had an agenda".
Just WHY he did what he did is after all, half of the qustion we're asking,the other half being who was he.
The third half of course would be who exactly were his victims ;-)
Mags
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 212
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 7:52 pm: |
|
Dear Mr. Hinton:
Actually Sulley's post isn't that bad. There are others here hoo mayk speling misteaks too,but I haven't seen you speak up against them.
Could your objection really be based on the fact that Sulley proposed a ritualistic aspect to these murders? I remember awhile back when you started a thread under "Fiction Books" with a certain book that likewise proposes the same motive to the crimes.
Actually,eviscerations which do involve removing hearts,more likely than not,involve ritualism. They are also NOT that common.
When you stated that Sulley should "go back to his research to see where the facts take you", perhaps you were using the example of that poor elderly woman in north Wales who was murdered and had her heart removed. That wasn't a serial killer at work,but a "one-off" as the Brits say....
We all know what "agenda" means and what Sulley meant. It means what he intended it to mean,Bob....a plan based on either ritual or a "mission" like a man with religious frenzy.
When Sulley says..."Many theorists, detectives , ect have stated that the ripper could be a lone psyco with sexual problems or just mental problems like shcizoprenia.I even read an FBI report saying this was probably the case.I dont purport to have the same qualifications , but the very obvious is that this conclusion is blatantly wrong.In a sea of conjecture I am only using hard facts to establish that the Whitechappell murderer had an agenda..".......isn't he actually supporting your belief in Hutchinson-as-Ripper in a roundabout way, albeit in a brusque fashion? StreetCorner George certainly didn't display any of the FBI created "characteristics" of the suspect they favored....
Looks like Sulley isn't the only one with an agenda....and I ain't talking French notebooks. As soon as someone mentions "ritual" or "occult", those with different opinions hop up and get aggressive with "newbies", like this Sulley, who may be syntax challenged.
If you need help with your spelling,Sulley...I'm your man.
How |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 772
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 9:38 pm: |
|
Every other serial killer ever , US , UK , Europe , I could not find one who has not in some way tried to conceal the corpses.... If... what I have written is incorrect - please tell me.
Zodiac shot five people in cars, stabbed two next to a lake, left them where they were. Son of Sam, also shot his victims in their cars and left them there. Bianchi and Buono dumped the bodies of their victims in public places. That's just off the top of my head. I could probably find about 50 more if I stopped to actually think about it.
"All I know of morality, I learned from football" - Albert Camus
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
Dear Howard,
I'm afraid you are totally wrong here. I have no axe to grind one way or another about any theories held by other people. I have my theory other people have theirs - that's fine.
The point I was making is that Sulley made one or two assertions which he is using to back his theory which are totally incorrect.
His theory would also be a bit easier to grasp if he just took a few minutes to marshall his thoughts and write more clearly - correct spelling would help enormously. Just read one of his remarks:
"but the very obvious is that this conclusion is blatantly wrong."
Now if readers have to wade through acres of that they just won't bother, which would be a pity as Sulley might have something worthwhile to contribute.
Is he trying to say that the conclusions reached by various people are blatantly wrong? If so why does he think that. He can't just say "My theory won't work if these people are right - therefore I will label them wrong and take it from there'
I totally refute your suggestion that I am "getting agressive" with a newbie because he supports a black magic theory. I am quite open to any idea or theory - but I would like it put forward in terms the rest of us understand.
There is too much use of meaningless buzzwords nowadays. You say we all know what 'agenda' means. I have given you two correct meanings and you don't like them. If Sulley is trying to say the killer was working to a plan then what's wrong with saying that?
Bob |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Definition of agenda dreamed up by me:
Agenda A set of goals, held by an individual, but not usually acknowledged to others because they will not be considered acceptable. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 195
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Bob , surely the removal of the heart in a murder case is at least somewhat unusual ? The case in from North Wales was weird to say the least , if not ritualistic : the killer believed he could become a vampire by eating the heart and/or drinking the blood of the old lady if I'm not mistaken.
I feel sure that removal of the heart would have been unusual for a Victorian murder case. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 217
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Thanks for this information,Mr.Owen.
Once again,its worth repeating that as Alan Sharp mentioned the Zodiac Killer [multiple murders,with a ritual involved,i.e. the 57 degree radian angle mumbo jumbo..the costume..the plan to make slaves of the victims in the next world, etc..] and this kook that Simon mentioned [ a single,one-off,murder with a guy aspiring to be a vampire ] both involve rituals of sorts..
Now....of course this latter dude is crazier than a shi*house rat. Nonetheless,it involves a "ritual" of him needing a victims blood. A psychotic with an agenda.
The Zodiac most likely was a psychopath. His taunting letters indicate the reason he killed the people he did and eerily,he took a piece of a victim's shirt,as did the Ripper. There are the markings of ritual in his circle/with crosshairs insignia.
Two different types of killers...two different motives...two different[ serial killer and solo crime ] types of murder patterns....yet the taint of ritual in both. Not Heavens Gate cult ritual...Jim Jones kool aid ritual...witchcraft and cauldron ritual...putting a cat in the microwave...but personal rituals of sorts.
Neither killer had sex with their victims,just as JTR didn't.
Can we assume some modicum of sexual enjoyment by these two creeps? You bet. Was it the motive? Certainly not.
Mr. Hinton...I wasn't trying to be nasty with you. If you in any way felt I was,I apologize. After all,what we all posit here are just ideas that are often misconstrued. You weren't even referring to me in the first place.
However,I wasn't incorrect by mentioning the action you took a while back in putting that book in the wrong section of the Books Forum. That,along with the rapid response to this Sulley Mulley person, seemed a bit too quick to be coincidence. I then see on another thread you have serious reservations about the "points of the compass" argument that the major purveyor of this idea cannot argue about here. No one has disputed The Parlour's mutual belief in the "arrow" to Parliament idea anywhere near the way the other theory has been castigated or,as you put it, "Lets make a pattern !" in another spot around here....
In any event,you are certainly entitled to your ideas and no one should hassle you for them. I sure don't and won't. We are both after the same s.o.b. who killed these women...and of course there is a difference in the "rituals" of the Zodiac, this Welsh guy you and Simon mentioned and in my opinion,the ritual my preferred suspect had in mind. Different rituals...but rituals.
The man behind this idea has tested it by compass with witnesses,according to him to be fair,that verify that the first 4 of the C5 were killed, beginning with Nichols at the North,not NE. Which has brought to mind another point that is puzzling....
On the back of Ripper Notes,# 20, the magazine shows a map of The East End in precisely the pattern the 4 point-idea says it does, looking at the cover in a normal vertical fashion. In fact,this pattern is repeated within the magazine...... Could we all be looking at an incorrect map,such as,and no criticism meant,the excellent map from RipperArt,which is the usual map we see in regard to the layout of the East End?
In closing,the man with the 4 point plan has a put up a financial wager that he is correct...A quick way to shut him up would be to take him up on it and prove him wrong once and for all.
How |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3041
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Howard,
"The Zodiac most likely was a psychopath. His taunting letters indicate the reason he killed the people he did and eerily,he took a piece of a victim's shirt,as did the Ripper. There are the markings of ritual in his circle/with crosshairs insignia."
I agree that the Zodiac was an attention-seeking psychopath. But the Zodiac is a million light years from the Ripper in both crimes and personality traits. They have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.
Seeking patterns is a useless excercise, only aimed to create fantasy connections and worthless theoretical constructions. Each of us can seek and find any pattern we like, suitable for our own subjective interpretations of the crimes. It is total nonsense.
"Neither killer had sex with their victims,just as JTR didn't.
Can we assume some modicum of sexual enjoyment by these two creeps? You bet. Was it the motive? Certainly not."
That there are no trails of sperm or "traditional" sexual intercourse, and that the murders therefore must be considered NOT sexually related, is of course a terrible misconception -- and a very old and ignorant one.
From what we know so far, mutilation murders are usually based on abnormal sexual fantaises, and the mutilations are a replacement for the actual sexual activity. This is no news flash; it has been detected in a large majority of several serial mutilation murders during a long span of decades. The mutilations are in fact a result of twisted sexual meaning and gratification.
Some killers of this kind have been -- at least according to themselves -- under influence of hallucinations and religious mania (for example), but this group is very small and under-represented.
We will NEVER know for sure what the driving forces behind the Ripper's actions were, but just because there are no signs of sexual activity as we know it doesen't mean that the sexual implications aren't there. This types of individuals have sexual fantasies that lies very far from our normal interpretations of sex and sexual needs, and they find sexual gratification in things and actions most of us luckily wouldn't even imagine possible.
And "motive"? What motive? Those types of murders are generally motiveless and perpetrated on impulse. Hardly as a part of a big plan or over-all scheme. They can be, of course, but there is no reason for taking it for granted.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 31, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 301
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Hello all,
Zodiac was a Ripper copycat. Most likely a Crowley-clone. Another serial killer who left the bodies out in the open, and one who I do not believe (at this time) to have been occult-influenced, is the Black Dahlia killer, who was probably responsible for deaths other than that of Beth Short.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 218
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Glenn...
I said...""Neither killer had sex with their victims,just as JTR didn't.
Can we assume some modicum of sexual enjoyment by these two creeps? You bet. Was it the motive? Certainly not."
You said...."That there are no trails of sperm or "traditional" sexual intercourse, and that the murders therefore must be considered NOT sexually related, is of course a terrible misconception -- and a very old and ignorant one."
My man,I didn't say there was a total absence of sexual pleasure or whatever you want to describe it as,with the two examples {Zodiac and this Welsh dude..]...I said that there WAS a modicum,but not that it was the reason or agenda of these two.
I see things differently Glenn. I see the Zodiac exhibiting his desire to control,as I do with the Ripper. This, of course, is predicated on my belief that Donston did it,for his egotistical and evil reasons...and with a twist of sexual deviancy. You obviously are working from a tabla rasa with no certain suspect in mind.
Of course ritualists have a degree [large or small is irrelevant] of sexual enjoyment. They are also misogynistic with little regard for women and often,men,objectifying them. What has not been established,regardless of how ignorant it sounds to some,is the base motive of these crimes,period.
You said..."These types of individuals have sexual fantasies that lies very far from our normal interpretations of sex and sexual needs, and they find sexual gratification in things and actions most of us luckily wouldn't even imagine possible."
So do a lot of other people that don't turn into serial killers and some serial killers are almost puritanical.
Motive? This motive...that these creeps who sincerely believe in obtaining some supernatural gifts from killing people,of course are whacked out,but nonetheless practitioners in the attempt to gain this thing they seek. Sex is such a powerful and driving force in our existence that it would be impossible to completely eliminate it from almost ANY sort of murder and most endeavors,period.
You may see the murders as the work of a psychopath...Fair enough. My belief is that a man,under the self-delusion of some ritualistic mumbo jumbo nonsense involving murder, which would give him supernatural gifts, was the motive or in another way of saying it,the vehicle for his madness for the commission of the WM. His behavior with Cremers..his bizarre traits , the fear Collins had of him at the end of their relationship, the explanation of the GSG,Stead's views,the Marsh/Davies affair [ for a good depiction of this,read David Knott's story over at the Forums...[shameless plug], and a variety of other things about this man make me think he's our boy.
But in the end,we are still buddies,regardless of which type or which creep was the Ripper. So let's drink....and fight another day.
Skoal ! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3044
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:33 pm: |
|
Hi Howard,
"My man,I didn't say there was a total absence of sexual pleasure or whatever you want to describe it as,with the two examples {Zodiac and this Welsh dude..]...I said that there WAS a modicum,but not that it was the reason or agenda of these two."
We can't possibly know the reasons for the murders or the so called "agenda" of the murderer.
All we know so far is that mutilation murders usually are a result of sexual fantasies and sometimes connected with the upbringing and an unstable disposition. But it is for the most part a perverted disposition that is the trigger -- no need to read anything else into them than sexual and depraved driving forces. Besides that, we can't possibly know what happens inside a head of a character like that.
"I see things differently Glenn. I see the Zodiac exhibiting his desire to control,as I do with the Ripper. This, of course, is predicated on my belief that Donston did it,for his egotistical and evil reasons...and with a twist of sexual deviancy. You obviously are working from a tabla rasa with no certain suspect in mind."
True, I work with no suspect in mind.
But the Zodiac is a completely different killer than the Ripper. The Zodiac loved to inject himself in the investigation and communicate with the police and the press, sending riddles to them. He wante to be the center of attention.
He is truly a ritualistic killer -- which is shown in his communication -- and the Ripper was probably not.
The Ripper was not interested -- from what we know -- in communicating with or mocking the police or the press.
He did what he had to do, for whatever reasons (probably because he had to mutilate compulsively), and then cleared off.
The Ripper and the Zodiac are as night and day.
"Motive? This motive...that these creeps who sincerely believe in obtaining some supernatural gifts from killing people,of course are whacked out,but nonetheless practitioners in the attempt to gain this thing they seek. Sex is such a powerful and driving force in our existence that it would be impossible to completely eliminate it from almost ANY sort of murder and most endeavors,period."
But you are referring to driving forces or the needs that acts as base for the murders. "Motiveless" in this context means that there is no deliberate, thought-out and premeditated scheme that lays behind it. Only impulse and no "agenda".
"You may see the murders as the work of a psychopath...Fair enough."
No, not at all. I can't say for sure, but I think he was a paranoid schizofrenic or something similar.
But there are no evidence of rituals or complex Zodiac-like patterns in the Ripper murders that goes beyond the usual sexual driving forces that seem to make these killers tick in the majority of cases.
Skål, Howard.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 502
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 3:42 am: |
|
Hi Howard,
The map on the back cover of the October 2004 issue of Ripper Notes does show the murder locations, but I should clarify a few things:
1) The actual pinprick locations are generally quite accurate, though I don't guarantee absolute precision. I think I moved Nichol's up slightly so the street name became visible, for one thing, and this map doesn't have individual buildings marked so it was kind of hit or miss at that level of detail.
2) I didn't label the cardinal directions on that map for the simple reason that I don't know them for sure.
3) As I mentioned in my article in that issue, by my reckoning the spots do not appear to be 100% exact in the distances. The Stride location appears to be farther away from the middle point than the Chapman location, for example. But then I can't promise that this map is 100% accurate in distances, or that if the killer wanted to make the distances the same that he was using a map that matched the one I used and/or was accurate.
The general points do at least roughly line up, but then whether that was intentional or accidental isn't something that can be proven... but that was all in my article, as reprinted as a dissertation on this site.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
Dear Howard,
Just a few points. You mention the Parlours theory about the arrow not being disputed, you are not to know this of course but on publication of their book I did write quite a lengthy rebuttal of the 'arrow to Parliament' for the Ripperologist.
As for having serious reservations about the 'points of the compass' it's not reservations it just stating a simple fact that if you take as your base point the intersection of the two lines joining Eddowes Nicholls, and Chapman Stride ( which you have to as any other base point is meaningless) then the murder sites to not by any stretch of the imagination conform to the cardinal points of the compass. That is a fact that is readily verifiable by anyone with a map - not my opinion.
The map I use for the murders is the largest scale possible - it actually shows doorsteps! I used to sell these some time ago together with a street index. Perhaps I should again.
You mention again something about a Books section. I really cannot recall what this is about. Could you give the link to it so I can refresh my memory?
Just for information the distance between the murder sites is not the same either. My measuring them out using the same large scale map I found a difference of about 10%.
If we stop for a moment and think it will become obvious why any suggestion that the bodies were laid out to conform to a pattern is hardly tenable.
To do this the killer must first take a map of the area. Now the map I use is a composite from about 16 different maps. The scale is so large each individual sheet covers a very small area.
To achieve this took took considerable skill with a powerful computer - something I hardly think available to JTR.
Even if the killer used a much smaller scale map such as the Godfrey edition to plot his pattern - what was the point? Its still quite difficult to plot a pattern that doesn't involve leaving a body on a roof or embedded in a wall.
Surely to achieve a pattern of bodies would be quite simple. Go out to Clapham common or similar where there are no obstructions and dump your bodies to your hearts content.
And finally,
You say:
"The man behind this idea has tested it by compass with witnesses,according to him to be fair,that verify that the first 4 of the C5 were killed, beginning with Nichols at the North,not NE."
Who is he and what is it he has supposed to have done? If he says Nichols body is left due North of course it is - if he is standing due South of it when he takes the bearing. Similarly it would be due South if he was standing due North.
If you wish to show a pattern then all the bearings have to be taken from the same spot otherwise it's meaningless.
For example I can prove all the bodies, including MJK were left due East. I can do this by standing West of the location when I take my bearing!
Bob
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Hello all,
Two points regarding the idea that the bodies were
deliberately positioned.
If the muderer was so meticulous and had made sure the victims bodies where facing predetermined points of the compass,isn't it extremely fortuitous or too much of a coincidence that Kelly happened to end up in her bed and the right way up-ie.head against the headboard!
Also Stride's attacker originally tried to pull her out of Dutfields yard.
Maybe Schwartz missed out the bit where Stride's attacker pulled a map from his pocket and said to himself "Oh no,the body does go in the yard,stay where you are love"!
Kane |
Sulley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Thank you all for your responses, as you can see I am new to the game.I apologise for any impudence or bad spelling as I am a busy man and was very tired when I made this post.Now I am fully with it and had time to garner my thoughts , I would like to clarify a few points.I wasn't using the dictionary meaning of agenda, but the more colloquial meaning, things to be done and a reason for doing it.I see a few failed to see my point so I shall put it more succinctly: I believe the killer had a real, bona fide motive, as opposed to a not really genuine reason.I will elaborate on some points I have made.
- I should have been more explicit about the term serial killer.I refer to the classic infamous serial killers such as Gasey, Bundy,Gein,Boston,Yorkshire, Milat ect who molested their victims before and after dispatching them.Son of Sam, Zodiac, Washington sniper, Wittman ect who use firearms are not really serial killers , but common murderers like the thousands of gun related homicides that occur each year.The killers I have mentioned have all , or in some cases tried to conceal the bodies.The Whitechapel man overtly made no attempt to conceal his work.This is actually quite uncommon.
- when referring to the groups I studied,I was not suggesting 'Black Magic', merely that these things are generally done for a reason.
- Mary Kelly's heart was not only cut out, but kept as a trophy, unlike the rest of her remains which were left in the room. I dont wish to come accross as a 'Smart Alec' but this is actually a VERY PERSONAL thing to do.
- I have read a dozen times that no sex occured.For the suspects without a genuine reason,(Kosminski,Druitt,Tumblety,Ostrog, ect), if sex is not a factor then why? Why bother with fancy mutilations,'fried and ate kidneys', heart trophys ect- did they do it out of boredem? |
Jeff Flowers
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Occult involvement can't be ruled out. One reason serial killers do what they do is because they feel empowered by it. Not to be crass, but looking at the victims- helpless, middle-aged old women, and prostitutes at that- it's hard to see the empowerment. Unless, of course, the human beings involved made absolutely no difference whatsoever, except that they were human, and easily available. This is why an occultist would have some sort of interest. There have been others who murdered prostitutes of course, and others who murdered older women. But not a combination of the two, at least to my knowledge. I would lean toward the notion that they were chosen as victims simply because it was so easy (though of course, I could be wrong) |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 304
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Sulley-- you're going to have to define what you mean be "serial killer" if you exclude Son of Sam because he used a gun! Yet you include Gein as a "molester". I beg to differ with you on that point.
I don't understand what you're saying about sex as a reason for the murders.
If we defne "sex" very narrowly as the act of intercourse, then no, it appears that JTR did not have sex with his victims. But, as was pointed out, "sex" is a very broad topic (no pun) and the act of mutilation can take the place of penetration and afford the same amount of pleasure.
I also don't understand the point of whether or not bodies are hidden. Are you saying that he had a NEED to dsplay them? Maybe he did, that happens. Or maybe, given the location they were in and his need for speed leaving where they fell was just practical.
Mags
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3049
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Sulley,
I am a bit puzzled here.
Have you totally missed the larger portion of arguments above?
"- I should have been more explicit about the term serial killer.I refer to the classic infamous serial killers such as Gasey, Bundy,Gein,Boston,Yorkshire, Milat ect who molested their victims before and after dispatching them.Son of Sam, Zodiac, Washington sniper, Wittman ect who use firearms are not really serial killers , but common murderers like the thousands of gun related homicides that occur each year."
Compeletely wrong. This is something you have made up. Common murderers?
The term "serial killer" is based on the number of victims killed by the same person, namely that the murders he or she commits are part of a series -- not the choice of weapon or method!
As far as I know, two victims or more makes a person a serial killer (I think it used to be three earlier).
Then there are different kinds of serial killers, but that is a completely different ball game.
"The Whitechapel man overtly made no attempt to conceal his work.This is actually quite uncommon."
Wrong again, as others here already have pointed out to you. It is actually very common!
If you don't know about it -- fine, we can't know everything, but that is easily fixed if you make some more thorough reserach.
"- Mary Kelly's heart was not only cut out, but kept as a trophy, unlike the rest of her remains which were left in the room. I dont wish to come accross as a 'Smart Alec' but this is actually a VERY PERSONAL thing to do."
That's true, that is a very personal thing to do, from a symbolic point of view. So is usually the dehumanisation from the destruction of the face. But you are claiming things with certainty regarding Mary Kelly. Her heart was missing and removed, but we have no real evidence of the the killer actually took it with him! He probably did, but it can't be supported by facts.
"- I have read a dozen times that no sex occured.For the suspects without a genuine reason,(Kosminski,Druitt,Tumblety,Ostrog, ect), if sex is not a factor then why? Why bother with fancy mutilations,'fried and ate kidneys', heart trophys ect- did they do it out of boredem?"
Do you ever read the answers you get?
I'll repeat what I said again:
That there are no trails of sperm or "traditional" sexual intercourse, and that the murders therefore must be considered NOT sexually related, is of course a terrible misconception -- and a very old and ignorant one.
From what we know so far, mutilation murders are usually based on abnormal sexual fantaises, and the mutilations are a replacement for the actual sexual activity. This is no news flash; it has been detected in a large majority of several serial mutilation murders during a long span of decades. The mutilations are in fact very often -- from what we know so far -- a result of twisted sexual meaning and gratification.
Some killers of this kind have been -- at least according to themselves -- under influence of hallucinations and religious mania (for example), but this group is very small and under-represented.
Their sexual fantasies and their views on sex are not the same as ours, Sulley. Trophees, mutilations and sometimes even strangulation acts as replacement for a normal sexual encounter, and -- as Mags correctly stated -- penetration and pleasure. So sex is usually a factor, but not in the "normal" way we know it.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 01, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 467
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Sulley,
You wrote: "The Whitechapel man overtly made no attempt to conceal his work.This is actually quite uncommon."
You don't seem to have bothered to read my post above (among others). Again, and regardless of whether it's uncommon or not, the Ripper's main reason for leaving his victims where they collapsed was most probably a practical one, just like Mags suggests, and not to send out some message to the public or something like that, if that's what you're implying.
And amen to your post, Glenn!
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 302
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 8:23 pm: |
|
Hello,
Skimming through these posts a few things have caught my eye. Number one, Glenn says Zodiac and the Ripper are night and day because, in his interpretation of events, the Ripper did not write letters or interject himself into the investigation. This is a moot point. I stated the Zodiac was a Ripper copycat - and he was - because he was imitating what HE THOUGHT the Ripper to have been.
Another irksome point is the reference to the organs taken by the killer as 'trophies'. This assumes and awful lot. This is just an old profiler catch-phrase. This should not be taken for granted. The Ripper may have had a purpose for the organ other than as a trophy.
Also, Sulley's comment that 'Son of Sam' and 'Zodiac' weren't real serial killers because they didn't use knives is absurb. According to Berkowitz, his first victim was attacked with a knife, but was so unsuccessful (9 wounds and the person was released from the hospital the same day!) that he switched to guns - an option not really available to the Ripper, given the circumstances he was working under. As for Zodiac, the two victims he attacked at Lake Berryessa (one survived) were indeed attacked with a knife.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3055
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Tom,
"Number one, Glenn says Zodiac and the Ripper are night and day because, in his interpretation of events, the Ripper did not write letters or interject himself into the investigation. This is a moot point. I stated the Zodiac was a Ripper copycat - and he was - because he was imitating what HE THOUGHT the Ripper to have been."
What the Zodiac believed the Ripper to have been is surely besides the point. If that is the case, he sure got a lot of things wrong as a "copy-cat", since his crimes are nothing like the Ripper's at all -- there are no evidence or true indications on that the Ripper actually approached the media or the authorities. So the Zodiac's interpretation of the Ripper doesen't in any way turns him into a similar type of killer as the Ripper. For the Zodiac, the letters and communications -- littered with symbols and riddles -- were an important part of the game. But from what we can establish so far, that has very little to do with how the Ripper operated.
"Another irksome point is the reference to the organs taken by the killer as 'trophies'. This assumes and awful lot. This is just an old profiler catch-phrase. This should not be taken for granted. The Ripper may have had a purpose for the organ other than as a trophy."
Naturally. Of course he may; I am not disputing that. As I have said a million times by now, we can not really peek into the head of the Ripper, we can only read the crime scene evidence and relate to what we know from other mutilating serial killers. And those usually uses the organs or body parts as trophees -- sure, in the Ripper's case, that is speculation, but it is the what we can establish with certainty has been the case in a number of similar murders and hardly uncommon -- and therefore offers the least speculative explanation.
Furthermore, to refer to the "trophy" thing as an "old profiler catch phrase" is not only tedious but incorrect. This term and what it represents is very much common knowledge among the police force itself and not just connected with profiling -- my own personal position towards profiling is very much critical and ambivalent, to say the least, and if Mr Westcott had paid attention and not "skimmed through" the posts or make the facts fit the ritualistic aspects, he would have known that by now.
At least I am not the one of us who have a pet suspect in D'Onston to protect.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 01, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
I think Sulley was saying that Jack the Ripper had an agenda , and there were several possible candidates. He/she was not being specific about occultism. However, people don't seem to be debating the matter.
I wondered whether anyone might have any serious ideas re the geniune matter of transport being use by Jack, and I have opened a thread on it. |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 95
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
I don't think "Jack" had an agenda at all.
There's no evidence.
I think he was a disorganised madman, who struck in a largely un-planned, spasmodic way. Bodies were just forgotten once they had satisfied his urges.
In several he may have been opportunistic and had to flee before he was finished - Nicols and Eddowes?
Can we please stop beginning with the theory and bending the facts to fit. It simply doesn't work!! We do not know for certain what the "facts" are!!
Phil |
mr poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Hello
Just a question: MJK's heart. Was the rib cage broken to get this out. The photos imply to me that the ribcage was denuded to the bone but not actually smashed.
Does a mans fist and a heart fit between the bones of the ribcage?
If not, how easy is it to get at the heart from underneath what with lungs and everything?
If he took the heart with no damage to the ribs does this indicate medical knowledge?
mr poster
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 311
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
Hi, Mr. Poster- I recently saw a TV show about the Aztecs which asked just that question. Was their ritual of removing the living heart from their sacrificial victims accomplished through the ribcage or by cutting below it and teaching up under the bones?
A physical anthropologist and a doctor (I think) did an experiment substituting some kind of gel-like substance for flesh and concluded that given the enormous number of sacrifices they made in relatively short times they probably did go up through the thoracic cavity rather than cutting the ribcage. Of course the Aztecs were using obsidian knives but they were probably as sharp as the metal available to JTR.
Jack may not have needed speed in the MJK murder as much as the Aztec priests did.
The`inquest testimony by Dr. Bond states that "on opening the thorax...the left lung was intact...the pericardium was open BELOW and the heart was absent." emphasis mine.
I interpret this to mean that the thorax had not already been cut open and that the heart was removed from below,through the cut pericardium.
Mags
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 472
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Hi mr poster,
In addition to Mags' post, according to Dr Bond "the intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings." Furthermore, "on opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken & torn away." The liver, stomach, spleen and kidneys had been taken out of the abdominal cavity and were spread over the bed.
So, the rib cage indeed wasn't smashed or broken open. I think it's very likely that the Ripper emptied the abdominal cavity first, then he may have felt his way into the thorax. If he was actually looking for the heart, he may have tried to reach it by cutting away part of the right lung after which he finally cut the heart out from below, as the cut pericardium indicates.
Pure speculation of course, but maybe he only got the idea of cutting out the heart when he had denuded the rib cage. But then again, it may also have been the other way around, that he was looking for the heart and wanted to see if he could see and reach it by denuding the rib cage.
Unfortunately, there's nothing to indicate that the Ripper had been looking for the heart all along or that he had any medical expertise. I know of one case in which a woman was filleted in much the same way as Mary Jane Kelly was by a person without any medical background.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 1:17 am: |
|
Hi all,
Every once and a while a thread is started that really gets to the heart of the matter. Thanks Sulley. The fact that the ripper took away some of the organs is a very important aspect of the case. We have to explain why the ripper took away the organs and what he planned to do with them. Ripperologist often fail to explain this when putting forth there own preferd suspects. Why the ripper took the organs and what he was planning on doing with them are very important question. Inspector Abberline said in 1903 that he believed the ripper may have been harvesting the organs and the murders may have been commited for the sole purpose of obtaning them. Abberline was not always consistant with his views about the case. I believe I read that his last comment regarding the case was that the ripper would have been a member of high society. That remark is not consistant with the suspect he puts forth in 1903 George Chapman. However, in 1903 Abberline did entertain the idea that the ripper was harvesting the organs and he killed the unfortunates to obtain them. He gave the ripper an agenda.
Why did the ripper mutilate the bodies? The explanation could be simple. The ripper was crazy and he mutilated the bodies. Any of the suspects may have mutilated the bodies but what did the ripper do with organs when he carried them away? Did he eat them? Kosminski believed that he could only eat food that he found on the street and was often seen crawling around gutters looking for something to eat. Did the ripper perserve them in glass jars? Tumblety was said to have a collection of organs. Did the ripper use them for some sort of ritual purpose? D'Onston may have been into the occult or did the ripper discard the organs after takeing them? I am not qualified to give an educated opinion on why the ripper would have taken the organs. However, I feel the ripper took the organs as trophies. He may have taken Kelly's heart because he wanted that trophy. I believe he kept the organs and they would have been among his possesions.
The reason the ripper did not hide the bodies is no great mystery. 1. He may not have wanted to hide the bodies. 2. He may not of had away to hide the women. If he had tried to hide the women he probably would have been caught. speed was a very important factor with most of the murders. Inspector moore put it best when he said what made it easy for the ripper is the fact that the women took him to the place were they knew interuption was less likely. They took him to the perfect spot to commite the murders. I know that a few of the murders seemed to be commited in risky areas but I believe the women probably knew what they were doing and knew the spots. I do not feel the ripper chose the spots I think the prostitutes chose for him.
I do not post to inform. I post to learn and I feel uncomfortable when discussing theories that I do not agree with. I do not know who the ripper was and I do not know why he commited the murders and that is what makes this case a mystery.
Your friend,CB |
Sulley M
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 1:53 am: |
|
Greetings all, Sulley here.
I am learning this game fast.I will try my best to respond to all who have taken the time and effort to respond to me.
Bob , I retract my rash statement : the very obvious is that this conclusion is blatantly wrong. It was folly. I should have stated "I dont support this conclusion".
BOB and GLEN: "open signature and non concealment is common, I need to research".I've seen it in the movies, but not in my research. Not being a detective, I dont have access to the files you do.Could not find many examples of women with their entrails left on a city footpath for the public to examine.Can you give me some examples for me to research?I think one reason we are doing all this 116 years on is that the Whitechapel murders were anomalous to most serial cases.
GLEN,ALAN,MARIA:I dont want to sidetrack too much, but the term 'Serial Killer needs some serious classification.This is too broad a topic and needs to be narrowed down.Killers which take an interest in tampering with their victims should be set apart.I read last night about 2 students who walked into Columbine High Scool and shot several people were part of a "Trenchcoat Marfia".Do detectives have classes that define copycats or idiots from the real deal?Glen sais "2 or more is a serial killer".I read extensively on assassins,MOB Whacks,hired hitmen,gangland killers, some who claim big tallies.Are they serial killers?Is what Son of Sam,Zodiac,Washington Sniper did any different to a MOB whack?I think you need to set apart these killers from the 'Hannibal Lectre' type serial killers.If you are going to put 'Son of Sam', 'Trenchcoat Marfia characters'in the same class as our Whitechapel person/s, you are comparing water to milk.
HOWARD:Hope my spelling has improved.You say sex was a modicum , but his agenda was supernatural.I saw a film 2 years ago where the killer believed by killing innocent people he would evolve into a "Supernatural Red Dragon".I believe this theory is pertinent for todays society, but an anachronism for 1888.I have looked at this place and period closely.It was a haven for vice.Poor people, violence,assaults,gangs,murders,fights, ect,ect,ect. A VERY TOUGH PLACE INDEED. The sort of place if you looked sideways at someone you would get your lights punched out.In this environment, people dont need much provication for violence.Is it possible some sort of provication was the motive or agenda here.Mary Kelly(whoever else?) may have provoked the wrong party.Money,territory,extortion,love may have brought this about.A psychopath wishing to become a Supernataral Red Dragon' seems a bit out of context and before its time.
MARIA AND GLEN:you say sex replaces the mutilation.I have attempted to fathom this.When I am enjoying love, the furtherest thing from my mind, and most peoples, is entrails,guts,arteries,the slaughterhouse floor, if you get my drift.SEX IS SEX and involves climaxing.Are you saying he has masturbated while doing this, or gone home and had a pull?If not , then mutilation AINT SEX.This is like saying "instead of having breakfast this morning I washed my car".
Cheers and the best , Sulley M. |
Kane Fiday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 9:07 pm: |
|
Hello Mr.Poster,
The ripper made several atempts to decapitate Kelly.
Each time he tried to saw through vertibrae rather than cartlidge.
This I think,demonstrates a distinct lack of medical or anatomical knowledge.
Kane |
Sulley M
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Hi , Sulley here again
TO FRANK VAN OPLOO: I did read your post , but I did not expect to have so many people to answer to .I wasn't sure if anyone would even read my post.So you will have to excuse me .
You say that your suspect got his thrill by mutilating, knowing he could be caught at any time.This is how he got his FIX.Are you suggesting your suspect was a pathological gambler.These are the traits of a pathological gambler.Perhaps you should look at the SUSPECT FILES for one such person?
As for practical reasons, if gambling was his thing, then this does not come into the equation.If he was not a gambler, then I am not saying it would be easy to conceal, but any lame attempt e.g. placed just out of public view would buy him some minutes in his escape( which as it turned out he didnt need anyway).This would be practical.I have read many people say some of the prostitutes were definately MURDERED in a location not where they were found.This means he has put them on the footpath for all to see!
* One last point Frank- whether he was brilliant, smart,mute,dumb,retarded,low class, middle class,Prince Albert, or any of the 70 plus suspects, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME ON THIS?Before the first murder was committed,he knew this would be BIG STUFF- we are still talking about it on this website today?
JOAN TAYLOR:I am a HE.Yes you did see my point.I didnt say South American Incas, Axtecs,Mohawks,The Blair Witch ect, went to London and did this.Generally they do it to an enemy who has provoked them or in a sacred ceremony once in a blue moon.Someone in London may have acted under the same premiss.It could have been many suspects , but I dont think a Mad Lunatic.Tell me where I must look to read your post on transport?
Regards Sulley.
"Without any disrespect to the media,police,detectives,public,- they all strain their eyes looking into the criminal world. The truth is the criminal world is a cesspit, not a science." - Mark Brandon "CHOPPER" Read. |
Nadine
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
I am one of the very few who agree with Sulley that there was something to these murders, an agenda.I have studied psychology and a few things catch my eye.The levels of mental affliction today in the western world(US,UK,AUSect) are quite high , about 20% of the population is afflicted by some form of mental illness.In 1888 however , although there were 'Lunatic assylums', the types of mental illness we have today were quite rare.I think you will find that the reason the original suspects (Kosminski,Druitt,ect) were named was that the police simply looked for whoever was 'nuts' and just happened to be living in the area at the time.These men just happened to be there.The exact same mentality ruled in the Spanish Inquisition, if you were 'Quassimoto',you were out of luck!
Anyway,I believe the idea of the 'Luny Toon' doing all this is unlikely and a bit anachronistic.If it happened today there would be press coverage but it would not suprise the public.
Secondly, the heart issue is an underated issue.Again ,today, not much of a big deal,probably some idiot copying what they saw in a movie.Back then,1888,it was a big deal!I read a poster who shrugged the issue and said "we dont really know what happened to it".We do friend.It wasnt in the room and not reported outside of the crimescene by the police.This means he's taken it.If you dont look at obvious things, we will never get anywhere.I wont say 'Trophy' as this term is seen as tacky by some posters.There is NO practical use for a human heart,unless he fried and ate it, which I totally believe he did not.YOU MUST THINK HARD ABOUT THIS.The only place it could be is in a jar or on a shelf.Now keeping someones heart in a jar, from a psychological point of view,indicates to me that our suspect may well have had an axe to grind, or AGENDA.
Only God knows who he was and why.He could have been anyone, yes a 'luny toon', but I am only speaking from 'THE ODDS' point of view.
Love Nadine. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 228
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Sulley....I wasn't trying to be offensive about your spelling,my friend. I wrote that in defense of you. I wrote it and you took it the wrong way.
You're preaching to the choir,my man,in regard to me. I don't see any definite evidence of a ssk at work. A man who got a little jiggle out what he was doing? Yeah...sure. Was it the reason for the different organs taken ? Nope.
Nadine....My dear,you aren't and neither is Sulley 'alone" in viewing these crimes from a perspective that the Ripper MAY have had an agenda. At the end of the day,it doesn't MATTER if he did ...or didn't. It is ,however, just as viable a reason for the WM as the inconclusive and/or undetermined garden variety "ssk" argument.
Later ...
How |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 314
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Nadine--
I 'm not getting why you think the killer had to have "an agenda". What does that mean and could you maybe give an example of what kind of agenda it might have been?
Many killers including Ed Gein and Jeffery Dahmer kept trophies. How does taking trophies prove an agenda other than a personal one?
Sulley- yes, when you make love you're not thinking of carnage, but then you're not a mutilating killer, I assume.There is NO QUESTION that some people do achieve orgasm through the act of killing and mutilating (and torturing etc) all by itself.You must know that, having read so much about crime.
Mags
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3067
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 7:25 pm: |
|
Sulley,
I don't know if FBI or the CID classifies assassines as serial killers -- I believe them to be a league of their own, since they are contracted by someone else (and that they would be referred to as contract killers rather than serial killers).
Most importantly, in the case of serial killers, their relation with their victims is practically non-existent -- in a contract killer's case, there is an obvious connection, since they are hired to take out that specific person. It is not an emotional connection, but it is there, to explain why that certain individual was picked out as a victim. Studying the work of a serial killer, there usually is no such logical link between the killer and the victim.
Furthermore, killers like the ones in Columbine high school are NOT serial killers -- they are mass murderers. Mass murderers kill a number of people during one particular event, usually several at the same occasion. It is not the same thing, and this definiton is widely accepted.
Son of Sam was clearly a serial killer, since he killed different people on different occasions, and with no personal relation between the victims or between himself and the victims (and with no obvious motive behind the crimes). These traits he shares with the Ripper, although their methods (Modus Operandi) differ from each other.
"If you are going to put 'Son of Sam', 'Trenchcoat Marfia characters'in the same class as our Whitechapel person/s, you are comparing water to milk."
I don't know about Trenchcoat Marfia characters, but Son of Sam and the Ripper are both serial killers, although with quite different methods and targets.
"you say sex replaces the mutilation.I have attempted to fathom this.When I am enjoying love, the furtherest thing from my mind, and most peoples, is entrails,guts,arteries,the slaughterhouse floor, if you get my drift.SEX IS SEX and involves climaxing."
As I tried to explain, yes those are YOUR preferences, but a twisted serial killer doesen't work the same as you and I does and his relationship with sex is not the same as ours. Some perpetrators -- like sadists -- gets aroused through violence, some gets sexual arousment from strangling somebody. You can get climax from all kinds of things. Your problem is that you are looking at it from your own personal perspective, not a twisted serial killer's. I tried to tell you that earlier. For a sexual serial murderer, sex is NOT necessarily sex and does not necessarily involve climax as we know it. All this is fairly evident from a large number of cases. It really doesen't take that much research.
"Are you saying he has masturbated while doing this, or gone home and had a pull?"
The latter is quite possible, but we can't know that. But one aspect of taking trophees is to relive the crimes, and masturbation is not uncommon during this. Jeffrey Dahmer used to ejaculate over some of the victim's heads he had cut off and kept in the refridgerator. Again, this is really yesterday's news.
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: 3068
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Nadine,
"There is NO practical use for a human heart,unless he fried and ate it, which I totally believe he did not.YOU MUST THINK HARD ABOUT THIS.The only place it could be is in a jar or on a shelf.Now keeping someones heart in a jar, from a psychological point of view,indicates to me that our suspect may well have had an axe to grind, or AGENDA."
Firstly, there is no practically use of ANY human organ, not least the womb -- which was the thropee the Ripper ran away with in two of his murders. You could of course fry the liver or the flesh, but that is not what was taken. We can't exclude the possibility that the Ripper indulged in cannibalism, but judging from the organs he took, I'd say that was not what he intended. I'd say he -- like several other serial killers -- took the organs as memorabilia, as thropees in order to relive the crimes over and over.
Secondly, you can't possibly know how many lunatics there were running around in the streets of East End, in an environment polluted by poverty, malneurishment, crimes, drunkedness, beggars with no roof over their heads etc.
Just look at the homeless people of today, where the number of schizofrenics are vast, and I'd say the situation in 1888 East End was worse than we could even imagine.
And third, unless you believe Kelly to be a 100% ripper victim, there is no real relevancy in discussing why the Ripper took the heart as a thropee. His seemed to be most interested in the womb and and organs from the abdominal area, that much we do know.
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: 473
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 7:31 pm: |
|
Hi Sulley,
You wrote: “You say that your suspect got his thrill by mutilating, knowing he could be caught at any time.”
That is not what I wrote, or at least, not like this. When you read it like you wrote it you might indeed think he got his fix out of the realisation that he could be caught, which is far from what I actually had in mind when I wrote that first post of mine.
I do not think the Ripper was a pathological gambler, nor do I think he got his kicks out of thinking he might be walked in on while doing his thing, so to speak. I think the Ripper hated women, but despite that he was probably still curious about their (female) bodies. That’s why I believe he killed and mutilated them. As IMHO the mutilations were the most important to the Ripper he killed his victims quickly and didn’t waste time concealing their bodies, so that he was able to mutilate and explore as long as possible. So from this point of view, not concealing the bodies would be practical.
“I have read many people say some of the prostitutes were definitely MURDERED in a location not where they were found. This means he has put them on the footpath for all to see!”
I don’t know where you read this, but that isn’t true. The women were killed where they were found. In my view the Ripper was a loner, someone who didn’t care for the outside world and as such I don’t think he left his victims for all to see. I think it was just practical for him to leave them where they collapsed.
“ WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME ON THIS? Before the first murder was committed, he knew this would be BIG STUFF- we are still talking about it on this website today?”
I don’t know if he knew it would be big stuff, but I doubt whether he was thinking about it that way and that he did it because of the very fact that it would be big stuff. Like I said, I think the Ripper was probably someone who kept to himself as much as he could, someone who may have withdrawn into a world of his own some or even most of the time. IMHO he wasn’t the type who was looking for notoriety.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 233
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Dear Bob...
I was in error about the sites and wish to amend that mistake here..
Nichols-east
Chapman-north
Stride-south
Eddowes-west
...according to the theory in question,which aligns these sites along the east-west route of Whitechapel Road.......
At present,I can't locate the reference to that long deleted thread. It was under "fiction" books and appeared a half year or so ago. Its gone with the wind..no biggee. Outta sight,outta mind.
Later,
How |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 196
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 6:02 pm: |
|
I think Sulley has made an important point : the killer of these women was making a big statement to the public at large with these murders , in fact the Ripper murders are still viewed as some of the most horrific crimes ever committed and we are still discussing them today. The last victim ( presumably ) being found on the day of the Lord Mayor's procession would seem to support the idea that the killer was trying to draw attention to his work and say something by what he was doing : I don't think he was after notoriety , but I believe he had a message that he wanted to convey.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3074
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Hi Simon,
I can't say if you're right or wrong because none of us really can peek into the head of the Ripper. But I think you are drawing too hard conclusions on just speculation. You can't possibly know if he intended to make a statement or not.
The fact that the ripper murders are still intriguing people have nothing to do with their "horrific" nature; compared to loads of later serial killer cases committed since then, they are practically nothing in comparison.
Their notoriety is deriving from the the fact that they were unsolved and that the events took place in a romantizised historical era (with gas lamps and dark Victorian alleys as main elements) -- not to mention the myths that the contemporary illustrated tabloid press managed to create. So their notoriety has really not that much to do with their level of brutality. Far worse crimes than those of the Ripper has seen the light since 1888 -- a large amount of them as well.
The body position of some of the victims show some level of attempts to degrade them and to create a shock effect, but apart from that, I hardly believe the murders were committed as a result of a deliberate attempt to convey a message or statement. Certainly, no evidence whatsoever supports such speculations.
If the murderer was interested in making a statement, he would most certainly also have been communicating with the police and the press to a much larger degree, and from what we can see so far, none of the known communications or letters display any knowledge of the crimes that couldn't already have been picked up from reading the papers or previous letters anyway.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 197
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Well , the Ratcliffe Highway murders were brutal unsolved crimes committed in 19th century London , but we don't obsess over them in the way we do the Ripper case : there is something uniquely fascinating and horrible about the Whitechapel murders I believe.
Surely its a reasonable speculation that the Ripper set out to shock the Victorian public with his crimes ?
As for communications , the Ripper may or may not have used the press to communicate with the police , but he did leave us the Goulston St grafitti to ponder over- and he left a piece of apron behind to prove he had written it. |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Forgive me but I think the question of whether Jack the Ripper had an agenda is essential. It helps define the criminal motive, and helps pinpoint the situation that brought about the murders.
How can it not matter? I believe this particular question is always the first amongst the few asked by forensic psychologists during the course of their remit.
My own belief is that he did, due to his persistence in executing his crimes and in attempting to escape against the odds. The value of the agenda must have outweighed the risk he took.
This is probably the most intriguing aspect to the Ripper case from a forensic standpoint .
It is all too simple to look dolefully at corporeal forensic evidence and mutter that it is the work of a madman. Murderers do have agendas. We need to face it. |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
I wondered also if I might be able to take the opportunity to ask a question that has been bothering me for a long time.
About the organs taken. It seems to me we should identify this matter carefully before analysing the whys and wherefores of an agenda. I agree with Glenn that they seem to be abdominal-womb based. The fixation is with the female innards apparently. This might seem mundane, a fact known for years, but one always gets insights by looking at details again. Not that analysts are obsessed with looking at this, as some writers have suggested, but rather, they want to get to the truth.
The frustration in this vital matter is that reports apparently conflict. Did he or did he not take the heart, ( as some sort of a final trophy?)
There is dispute about this. What are the best references? I have looked at it myself, but remain confused.
Is there or is there not evidence of Freemasonry? This is only really suggestible in the case of Catharine Eddowes. We shouldn't adapt the other girl's cases to fit. Hogarth's 'Reward of Cruelty' might be seen to apply to Mary, but only at a stretch.
What would anyone want to take a kidney for?
Please can anyone helpfully outline exactly what organs Jack took, what mutilations he did and why, by the best authorities on it.
I would be very grateful for this kind assistance. I am very fedup with being baffled by it!
Does anyone join me in this bafflement.
 |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Hi Mags,
Agenda, "A list of things to be done", A purpose. I think that they are suggesting that the ripper had a purpose. A reason for commiting the murders. An example would be D'onston. It has been suggested that he killed the unfortunates in order to gain some kind of power. He killed them ritually he killed them in a specific places and he used the organs that he took away in some sort of ritual. The Royal conspiracy would be an example. Gull would be another ripper with an agenda. He wanted to kill specific unfortunates in order to coverup a secret marriage between Eddy an Annie.
I agree taking the organs and keeping them does not prove an agenda. However, Inspector Abberline when he put forth Chapman as the ripper suggested that he was havesting the organs for a second party. He suggested that chapman may have been paid by a second person to obtain the organs. That theory would be an example of the ripper having an agenda. I have ponderd the possibility that the murders may have been political. I am interested in a possible fenian connection or a connection with some political group.
I believe the ripper probably was crazy and he had no agenda except his own personal gratification. Maybe not sexuall gratification but the murders enabled him to have a power and control over the woman that he could not achieve in his own personal life.
Your friend, CB
|
AltoidsAddict
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Sulley,
I think you may be misunderstanding the nature of the so-called "Trenchcoat Mafia." The Trenchcoat Mafia were a high school clique of misfits who all happened to wear trenchcoats - nothing more. This was a common clique amongst high schools in the district, which were at the time very heavily stratified. My own clique wore trenchcoat-like canvas dusters. We felt there was no honor in shooting people; our physical disputes tended to be more ritualized. Had we felt otherwise, I can assure you "Columbine" would have instead happened at my school, and earlier, and I was not surprised when it happened nearby.
I would also be hesitant at even including Eric and Dylan (the two Columbine killers) in the Trenchcoat Mafia. They were at best on the periphery of the group. They were more loners than anything else.
Someone who is more well-versed than me, please clarify if necessary, but I was under the impression that simple spree killers like Eric and Dylan would not be considered serial killers. To be a classic serial killer, multiple victims need to be spread out over multiple instances with a time separation between killing. |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
An extremely helpful series of posts, Glenn, with some excellent defenitions, pinpointing all the useful approaches.
Many thanks. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
