|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 8:39 pm: |       |
Suppose we take everything we know about Jack. For instance: 1.Physically strong 2. Knowledge of local geography 3. Hated women, etc. We could evolve a pretty long list if we work together at it. Then we assign each fact a possible 10 points. When looking at each suspect he can score anywhere from 1 to 10 on each fact. For instance, if we have a suspect who is a stevedore from Kent he would get a 10 on question #1, a 1 on #2, and a 5 on #3. 5 indicates that we have no data either way, so it is a neutral score. Suppose we find out later that though he is from Kent his grandmother lives in Whitechapel and he occasionally visited her. We change his point score on #2 to 3. People with favorite suspects will undoubtedly add the criteria to the list that will convict their favorite, but thats ok because those same points can be used to judge other suspects. |
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 9:35 pm: | |
I thought about this some more. Some criteria would be in doubt. For instance, the various doctors who examined the victims at the time disagreed as to whether Jack had anatomical knowledge. Modern doctors who have posted on the boards have had varying opinions on this subject as well. So what we do is allow anatomical knowledge as a criteria, but only allow a point range of 3-7 instead of 1-10. That way, if AK is not a valid criteria it will not affect the outcome as much, but it will still have some influence in case it is a valid criteria. The longer the list the less likely it is that one or two invalid criteria will skew the results badly. |
Chris Phillips
Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 3:15 am: | |
Just for the sake of argument, is there a really good piece of evidence pointing to the killer having knowledge of local geography in anything but a broad sense?
On the one hand, it seems reasonable to assume that the secluded spots where the murders took place were selected by the victims, as secluded spots suitable to service their clients.
On the other, the killer is often spoken of as displaying remarkable skill in using the labyrinth of alleyways to make his escape. But really we know very little about the routes he took, and couldn't anyone with a reasonable sense of direction make use of the same alleyways (provided he could avoid going up too many blind alleys)?
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Police Constable
Username: Robert
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 9:05 am: | |
Hi Chris
I too have long wondered just how much local knowledge the Ripper actually had. I believe he lived locally, but he may have been a comparatively recent arrival.
With the exception of Kelly's, the murders seem to have been rushed jobs, doubtless accompanied on the Ripper's part by a nagging fear of discovery and the need to be alert to danger. He couldn't have enjoyed himself much.
Wouldn't a man who was really familiar with the area and its people, have known where to find the women who had their own rooms, and concentrated on those?
I suppose those who believe the Ripper had a programme (e.g. social reform, or frightening Kelly off the streets) don't have such a problem with this. But IF Jack's motives were pure gratification, then I find his behaviour a bit puzzling, unless he was a relative newcomer to the area.
Robert |
Jim DiPalma
Police Constable
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 10:24 am: | |
Hi All,
I too question whether detailed knowledge of the local geography was a pre-requisite for the Ripper murders. Each of the murder sites was close to a main road. Stewart Evans stated on the old message boards that a good working knowledge of the area can be gained in a couple of days. Given that, a newcomer to the area could have gained the required knowledge simply by walking the main roads for a few days.
Diana, interesting idea, but I think that deciding which rating factors end up on the list is going to be a bit controversial.
Cheers,
Jim |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 8:10 pm: | |
So whats new about controversy on the boards? Maybe geography should get a 3-7 range too then? What other criteria can we come up with? (Probably was of the same ethnic background as the victim, signs of mental illness, lower socioeconomic group, present in Whitechapel on the relevant dates, sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away after the killings ended) Wouldn't this approach be more intellectually honest than choosing a suspect and trying to force him to fit? |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 11:35 pm: | |
Jim,
I agree that a detailed knowledge of the local geography probably wasn't necessary, however one of the most dependable aspects of serial killer behavior is the idea that most killers operate in areas where the feel most comfortable - areas where they live, have lived, or work in.
As anyone who has read my umpty-zillion posts on the subject, I don't think the Ripper needed detailed knowledge of the areas he killed in because his victims WOULD have that knowledge, and he could rely on them to choose good places for him to kill them, because those places are good for sex too.
And if we throw in other "assumptions", say we assume that the Goulston Street Graffito was legit, it strengthens the argument that he was a "local".
In general, using just the facts that we are certain of (which is not many), I think the Ripper probably was a resident of the area simply because I find it difficult to believe that he'd be able to commit the kinds of cutting and slicing of his victims, with such confidence, and in such a short amount of time if he was constantly worrying about where he was and what could be lurking around the corner waiting to catch HIM. Knowing the area well would give him a bit more confidence that a transient wouldn't have.
B |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 12:42 am: | |
G'day,
What about his degree of medical knowledge?
I don't think he had to be trained in human anatomy.
LEANNE. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Police Constable
Username: Caz
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 2:24 am: | |
Hi All,
You've got me wondering now how likely it is that the ripper could have lived and/or worked in the area for a long while before committing the short series of horrific crimes attributed to him. Apart from a couple of non-fatal assaults that were possibly down to him, we might have expected to see a pattern of earlier motiveless attacks on women in the Whitechapel area, had he spent all his life there, or been a long-term resident. But if he was a new arrival in the East End, with its easy pickings, at a time when he had started to become a serious danger to women elsewhere, it might help to explain the quick succession of murders there that year.
Had the killer been a familiar face and a familiar presence within the local community (even a loner, going from one lodging house to another would qualify in time), it’s likely that, when something happened to him to stop the flow (and to my mind, he was in full flow with Kelly and was not intending her murder to be his finale), his sudden absence from that community would have been remarked upon by someone – whether he had to move away, was confined to prison or an asylum, fell ill or died. The sooner his familiar face was missed by anyone, after November 9th, the more likely rumours would have started and grown, Druitt-style, that he may have been the ripper. I think if this had happened with a local man and long-term resident, even the most reclusive with no friends and few acquaintances, the chances are that the jig-saw of his earlier life would have been pieced together eventually, and the real Jack would have emerged as the most likely suspect, even if nothing could ever have been proved against him.
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 37
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 5:26 am: | |
Hi Caz,
You bring up some excellent points in your post.
However, I think that the arguement could be applied from the other side, too. Someone who had just recently moved into the area would be subject to much scrutiny by the locals, particularly in those anxious months. By all accounts, a few strangers were almost lynched by mobs who believed them to be Jack.
I think it's possible that the killer was was a local man; and may have had a pre- existing psychological disorder/condition, that may not have manifested itself until triggered in some way.
It's no secret I favour Barnett as a suspect, but it could be any number of local men who had an issue with, or hatred of women and prostitutes in particular.
I'm not sure whether Mary was the last victim, but I think he inflicted the worst mutilations upon her because she had her own room. Or perhaps because he knew her. Perhaps after Mary, the killer was simply too afraid to murder in the area again.
Or perhaps Mary was the trigger, and after he killed her, the urge to kill was not so strong.
I'd like to include a link to the Sexual Homicide Exchange, Inc.
http://www.she-dc.com/pages/educ/Articles/myths.htm#
This page details the 10 biggest myths about serial killers. Point number seven states that serial killers can, and do stop killing when they reach a certain age. Obviously, this is only one source, and many profilers disagree on this point.
It's generally accepted that serial killers who were never caught either stop because they are incarcerated for another crime, or in an asylum. Or they may have died. Or perhaps the investigation into their crimes got too close to them. Or it is possible that the memories of their crimes are enough to contain their obssesion.
I read about the Ohio serial killer Larry Ralston, who apparently stopped killing for six years, whilst he was working in a morgue. Apparently, his work satisfied his urge to be involved with death.
There are many unsolved serial murder cases, perhaps some of those killers did stop killing. The zodiac killer is an example of one (amongst several) who may have stopped.
|
Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 24
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 6:47 am: | |
Brian,
It doesnt matter if the graffito was legit.
The arpon is the pointer in Goulston street. It shows that our boy was there.
I see your point about the victims being relied on to choose the murder sites but what happend after he dispatched them ??
When we are looking at local knowledge then shouldnt we be taking in the locals movement patterns...their daily routines, the police beats ect ??
These murders are huge gambles to take.
I do not think that every movement and action was planned....but I do not think he would have taken unessecary risks either.
Monty
 |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 11:37 am: | |
Monty,
Good point - he did have to drop the Apron there.
All of the victims were killed within easy walking distance of a primary street, be it Commercial Street, Mile End Road, Whitechapel Road or Aldgate High Street, etc. As soon as he "dispatched" his victims, all he needed to do was get back there and he'd melt into the masses.
But Monty, he DID take unnecessary risks - the mutilations were unnecessary risks, the double event on Sept. 30 was an unnecessary risk, etc. It's hard to say what he considered an unnecessary risk, but some of the things he did weren't exactly careful - especially if you consider Liz Stride to be a victim, when the crime scene points to his being interrupted by Deimschutz and having to flee the scene.
And locals would know the police beats better, and probably the actual constables themselves, too.
B |
Caroline Anne Morris
Police Constable
Username: Caz
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 12:26 pm: | |
Hi Marie,
I wouldn't disagree that serial killers can stop killing for various reasons and for varying periods of time. For instance, I could imagine the ripper giving himself a long breather after Kelly, especially if he had a narrow escape that time, or thought the police might be getting too close for comfort.
But the nature and frequency and brevity of the ripper series, in my view, argue against a reasonably young local man, starting and ending his murderous career with a bang, without any apparent history of violence towards women, then settling for the quiet life in his home town until old age creeps in, with no one ever suspecting the secret double life he lived for - what - just three months?
We know that serial killers often include among their victims people close to them, examples being Fred West, who killed at least one of his daughters, and Christie, who killed his wife. But I don't buy the theory that the ripper would not have killed anyone had it not been for Kelly.
You say that someone who had just recently moved into the area would be subject to much scrutiny by the locals, particularly in those anxious months. That may or may not be true, but certainly someone only recently arrived, staying on an occasional basis, or intending to pass through, would not be missed after the last murder in the same way that a local man would, if he was suddenly never seen or heard of again.
So I think Jack might well have been a traveller, who familiarised himself quite quickly with the Whitechapel area, was perhaps a regular visitor, whose stay there in 1888 coincided, by accident or design, with a peak in his violent tendencies, resulting in the short sharp shock of the ripper series.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 12:59 pm: | |
Interesting thread and good points.
However I do think everyone has missed an essential point here, and that is in the actual development of this type of killer, whom I would describe as an 'acute paranoid schizophrenic' - and I think Markman would agree - there is a progressive change in their behaviour which usually begins with self harm techniques of a minor nature and then goes on to murderous behaviour towards pets and other animals and then progresses to attacks against female relatives in their family, this process can take as long as five to ten years to fully develop. It is after this stage that this very particular type of killer will then seek out 'stranger' victims whom he will brutally slaughter and mutilate - in most cases the man is about twenty to twenty five years of age at this stage - and then after this explosive episode he may well settle down, locked within himself and return to some lesser anti-social behaviour, self harm being the usual, quite often resulting in the suicide of the person. The explosive phase may occur again but not always.
If the person lives it is usually locked within a deep catatonic state where he no longer remembers his crimes or recognises his surroundings.
I think you should consider this. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 1:29 pm: | |
hi,
i like this idea and its something i once toyed with.
i don't know how we would go about it.
we need to start somewhere!
jennifer |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 41
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 2:22 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
You posted: "We know that serial killers often include among their victims people close to them...."
Yes, I agree. And that's precisely why I favour a local man, and particularly one who knew at least one of the victims. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that points to the fact that serial killers often kill within their local area.
"But I don't buy the theory that the ripper would not have killed anyone had it not been for Kelly."
Honestly, I lean towards the fact that Mary herself, or at least Mary's relationship with the killer was the trigger for an already unbalanced mind (someone already suffering from a psychological condition).
Your theory on a traveller, or visitor to the area is perfectly plausible, and I've no logical arguement to forward against it. Except to say that it goes against my own particular gut feeling in this case.
AP Wolf, you make a very good case for the 'paranoid schizophrenic' killer, and it's certainly a possibility.
You posted: "there is a progressive change in their behaviour which usually begins with self harm techniques of a minor nature and then goes on to murderous behaviour towards pets and other animals and then progresses to attacks against female relatives in their family"
However, A paranoid schizophrenic may become violent, but certainly not all paranoid schizophrenics are violent. I've read that many serial killers are sociopaths.
I'd like to post a link to an interview with Jack Levin, "a professor of sociology and criminology and director of the Program for the Study of Violence and Conflict at Northeastern University, has authored or co-authored 18 books including Mass Murder: America’s Growing Menace and Overkill: Mass Murder and Serial Killing".
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/chat_jacklevin.html
The reason I post this link is because Mr Levin states that: "Most serial killers are sociopaths. They are able to kill with moral impunity because they are unable to feel remorseful, incapable of empathy. They are also manipulative, shrewd and more crafty than crazy, more bad than mad. Their crimes may be sickening, but they are not sick. Psychiatrists really haven't a clue as to how to rehabilitate a sociopath."
That is something that I quite believe. Which is why I think it's possible that Jack didn't lapse into dementia, or a catatonic state after the murders.
Mr Levin also states: "It's difficult to say why a serial killer would quit. In some cases — for example, when they're in a team — their partnership may break up and they may individually never kill again. In other cases, they may move to another community and start killing there. In a few cases, they may die. And finally, a few of them may decide that killing is not their cup of tea after all ... and they may decide to move on to some other hobby."
Which again, I believe is quite possible. I do believe that Jack simply stopped killing after Mary. Or if he did kill again, it was some time afterwards, and wasn't with the same ferocity as the attack on Mary.
Altogether, AP Wolf and Caz, I can't dismiss your arguements, and I would like to point out that they're extremely well thought-out, and intelligently presented.
I guess I just have a different view on this case.
PS>
AP Wolf, I'd like to include a link to an article on why some paranoid schizophrenics become violent. Just thought you might find it of some interest.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/nccfire/news01/news03aa.html
|
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 4:00 pm: | |
Marie
Absolutely right, most serial killers are sociopaths, and just about everything else you say makes uncommon good sense.
However the very nature of Jack's crimes is the stongest indication that they were not committed by such a sociopath, simply because of the ritualised mutilations. A sociopath killer may well mutilate his victim to help avoid identification of that victim, but I think you will find that a sociopath is empowered by control and mastery of a situation which involves another human being. This does require that the said human being is at least alive. And such well known sociopath killers as Bundy would sometimes keep their victimes alive for days to enjoy the power and control over their victims.
Jack did not.
Jack killed his victims in fifteen minutes flat.
No control, no power and no mastery.
Just madness. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 8:25 pm: | |
Reading the posts this is what I've got.
1. physically strong
2. knowledge of local geography
3. anatomical knowledge
4. hated women
5. schizoid or sociopath
6. risk taker
7. age in 20s or 30s.
8. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish
9. lower socioeconomic group
10. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates
12.sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders.
13. mutilated animals
14. self injury
15. control freak |
Scott Medine
Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 10:08 pm: | |
This thread has become interesting. However, just another word on knowledge of the area. As Brian has stated, most serial killers do work in areas that are comfortable to them. In fact, most killers, in general, kill where they are comfortable or where their victims feel comfortable. It is one of a murderer's biggest mistakes, next to killing someone they know. For those of you who believe the killer was a Cohen or Kosminiski type, it is important to remember that these people kill close to their homes as they typically are not able to piece together a coherent sentence let alone navigate a strange place.
As for the mutiliations being considered an unnecessary risk, this could not be further from the truth. In our eyes it was unnecessary, in his eyes, it was necessary as it was his signature.
If one plans a murder there are three things that should be always adhered to:
1) Never kill anyone you know.
2) Never kill them in places where you are they frequent or have intimate knowledge. This also means never dispose of them in these intimate places.
3) Always act alone. One never needs witnesses. The Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club motto is,"Three can keep a secret if two are dead."
But..... all of this is just my experience, take it or leave it.
Peace,
Scott |
Pettifogger
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 7:27 pm: | |
We know only ONE thing for sure about JtR:
He ABSOLUTELY knew the area after DARK. That doesn't necessarily mean he was "denizen" of Whitechapel. It does mean he frequented the area after DARK. |
Scott Medine
Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 10:24 pm: | |
"You offer me your gold, your wives and your daughters in exchange for me leaving you King of Persia. I own your gold, your wives, your daughters, your land and you. If I do not kill you consider yourself lucky."
Alexander The Great to King Darius, Ruler of the Persian Empire, after Alexander conquers Babylon.
"The ultimate control over a person is life and death. The ultimate mastery of a person is taking the life."
Spartan Proverb
"The spirit of hand to hand combat is to kill, kill, kill. To kill without regret."
U.S. Army Ranger School
Peace,
Scott |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 12:29 am: | |
Scott,
That was my point about the "unnecessary risk" - while we may consider the mutilations unnecessary, there's no way to know what Jacky thought, and as it was his signature, it probably wasn't "unecessary" to him.
B |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 2:29 am: | |
Scott
an acute paranoid schizophrenic can actually have bouts of great lucidity where he is able to communicate almost normally, his subject and presentation may be bizzare, but he may well be voluble. It is a 'mood' illness and hence dependent on the mood of the sufferer. The sufferer may well strike out with unbelievable speed and ferocity when something annoys or upsets him, but he could just as well laugh himself into hysteria. That mood swing is so subtle that it is almost impossible to quantify.
This type of killer when in an annoyed mood could literally kill someone for wishing them a 'good morning', and I could easily see the situation arising in the Whitchapel area - late at night - if this killer was wandering the streets aimlessly - as was his habit - that the only social grouping that might approach him at this late hour would the prostitutes of the area trying to earn their four pence for a bed for the night. Such a forward approach by a member of the opposite sex to a killer of this nature would be an unbearable affront and he would feel vastly intimidated by it, and if in the annoyed mood would probably kill the woman, very quickly.
No plan, no forethought, no ambition, no cunning, no weird design and no power or glory.
Just someone nudging the pin ball wizard and the little chrome ball goes down the hole. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 4:04 am: | |
Hi All,
Well, if Barnett was the ripper, or even if he only killed Kelly in a rit of fealous jage (and I just don't believe either personally), he broke at least two of Scott's three rules for getting away with murder, survived a police grilling, and survived into old age, with no one in his local community ever pointing the finger at him and saying "I bet he did it", and not one senior policeman naming him in memoirs as his 'most likely'.
I know that sociopaths or wife-killers don't tend to go round advertising their activities, but Barnett was flung under the spotlight and everyone, until recently, saw right through him - if he was indeed the one who had been wallowing in blood and guts such a short time before.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 7:19 am: | |
G'day,
Caz: Why don't you feel that Barnett could've been the Ripper? Do you feel sorry for him, like the Coroner obviously did after he laboured to give his testimony?
A lot of people have said that he survived a four hour police grilling! But police at the time didn't have the priviledge of studying the case like we do - from last murder back to first.
At the time of the Eddowes murder, they couldn't have known about the significance of the orange market right across from Mitre Square.
As for his after-life, Bruce Paley studied him for over 15 years, and couldn't find any immediate records of his wheresbouts, until 1906 when he got a new porters licence. But why should there be any records of a seemingly ordinary man? We can't know if he showed any signs of violence!
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
