|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 52
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 12:00 pm: |       |
Hi Scott,
You posted: "Once a suspect fits all three then link him to the crime by facts, not conjecture"
With all due respect to your training, and considerable experience in these matters- I think there might be an enormous amount of people who could fit all three points!
The facts we have available to us in this case are scant, so that leaves a lot of room for conjecture.
Although I do agree with you that simplicity is the key, in the absence of actually being able to interview any suspect or witness to obtain more facts- all we can do is attempt to refine upon multiple points.
Which again, (as you say), brings us back to conjecture. It's frustrating, but fun.
PS> Still intrigued as to who your suspect might be (I know you can't say). |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 12:50 pm: | |
Diana
Sorry but I never did say that Jack lured his victims to a lonely spot, on the contrary I maintained that he was himself accosted in such a spot by a prostitute. It was his habit to wander the streets of Whitechapel late at night, every night... it was just happenstance that sometimes a prostitute approached him on his nightly excursions and we all know the results of those chance encounters. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 84
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 1:24 pm: | |
Marie
Yes, as it happens, I do have a suspect in mind, in fact I have actually written a book in which this particular suspect is carefully examined, pulled to pieces and put back together again.
Although a long time ago, the book is now being revamped with new additions and the like and is appearing on the Casebook chapter by chapter, last two chapters being finalised as we speak.
I would be honoured if you would read through the chapters concerning this suspect, from Chapter 7 onwards, and then let me know your thoughts. Actually it would do you no harm to take a couple of hours off and read the whole thing as much of the book is concerned with exactly what we discuss here.
If you follow the links to my name on this site you should find the book okay.
I find myself in a bit of a quandry - when not a quarry - with your thoughts on Barnet and Kelly.
You see Kelly's murder does fall outside the scenario I have set for you, meaning that the suspect type I have presented to you would not under any circumstances have allowed himself to be invited into strange premises especially with a woman, and the evidence you and others suggest seems to indicate that there appeared to have been complicity between victim and client before the murder. That would disallow my suspect, just as it would in the Eddowes case where such complicity has also been talked about.
However I am as yet by no means convinced that this attested complicity is as solid as many of you believe, for the simple reason that even today a working prostitute is quite able to turn three 'tricks' an hour - when not more - in fact prostitutes who specialize purely in street work - in other words they have no premises to take their clients to - have a truly prodigious turn over rate, and we should not neglet this fact when examing the events leading up to the death of both Kelly and Eddowes.
In other words the client seen with the victim would not necessarily be the killer.
But I am still left with the problem of Kelly actually being murdered in her room.
The only circumstances in which my suspect type would have entered this room would have been if the door was not locked or he was able to gain access through a window.
He would not have entered the room in company with the victim.
So maybe we must continue to agree to disagree, however I will give you your due, your Barnet is a much more likely suspect in the killing of Kelly than mine, but your Barnet does not match any of the other crimes laid at the door of Jack.
So where do we go from here?
|
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 54
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 5:19 pm: | |
Hi AP Wolf,
I can't believe I didn't know you wrote 'Jack the Myth'. Colour me embarassed! I'm printing it out as I type, and I'm really looking forward to reading it.
Regarding Eddowes: she was seen at 1.35 am speaking with a man, and found dead ten minutes later. If you take into account the amount of time it took for her killer to make sure they were alone, to gain Eddowes trust, to position himself for the attack (unbeknownst to her), to kill her, mutilate her, take out a kidney, and then flee- and we're very close to ten minutes, I think.
I don't think there was enough time for her to meet another man. If we were talking about half an hour maybe, but not ten minutes.
But there's also another interesting point to Eddowes' murder, and that's the fact that she claimed to know who Jack was, and that she was going to claim the reward. If this story is to be believed, she may have been going to finger Barnett. In that case, she would assume that he didn't know, but I imagine she would have been a little nervous, anyway. In this sense, her hand on his chest could be seen as a placating gesture.
Eddowes was the first victim to suffer facial mutilations, and perhaps this was because she had personally made her killer angry. Again, just a theory.
Re Kelly: it just doesn't make sense that the killer entered through her door or window, I'm fairly certain that Mary brought her killer home.
A few people on this board have suggested that perhaps Mary wasn't a victim of 'The Ripper', and that perhaps Barnett killed her. If it is easier for people to swallow the fact that Barnett may have killed his ex in a horrific manner, then why couldn't he have committed the other murders? If one can commit one murder/ mutilation, one can certainly commit others. He had as much motivation to do so, as any of our other suspects. Maybe more.
I believe that whoever killed Kelly, also killed Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes. I'm forever in two minds about Stride.
By the same token, it's certainly possible that Barnett only killed Mary, and mutilated her to make it look like a 'Ripper' crime. I just personally don't see it that way.
So we may have a tentative meeting of minds over Kelly- but not over the other victims, then?
At any rate, I'm excited to read your book- and that's what I'm off to do right now.
|
Scott Medine
Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 9:02 pm: | |
Marie,
There are only three criminal motives, 1) Theft/burglary, 2) Sexual and 3) Personal. Anything else is just a subcategory.
There are a lot of facts in the case. Facts that have been loverlooked due to misinformation and misquotes and people trying to fill in the empty spaces.
you are right in stating that there are many people who fit the motive, means and oppurtunity test. To that I say welcome to the fun and fascinating world of homicide investigations, where the Cardinal Rule is "Question Everything."
It is also helpful to remember that conspiracies very rarely, if at all, exist and if a theory requires one to connect too many dots to make it work, chances are you are following the wrong set of tracks.
Conjecture is lucid evidence. It is circumstantial and if you have a dump truck load it will get a person convicted. But an infinite amount of it does not ever equal one hardcore, unadulterated, concrete, indisputable piece of evidence -- usually considered the smoking gun.
My suspect, and I hate calling him that because he may not have committed the murders but he did try to mislead police, has more circumstantial evidence against him than all of the others and in some cases, the evidence carries more weight. The evidence against him is definitely stronger than that against Walter Sickert. The few people that I have told have been rendered pop eyed to say the least. But, before I say anything, I want the one hard piece of evidence that may tie him to either theory. In fact, I believe I can prove Sickert did not committ the murders, I am waiting to meet with a computer whiz and an Architect to finalize that proof.
The hard core evidence for my suspect may not exist, in which case I'll need more circumstantial evidence before I say anything. However, at the moment people on both sided of the Atlantic are searching for the hard evidence.
Peace,
Scott |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 6:16 am: | |
G'day Wolf, (I say 'Wolf' and not 'A.P.' because it sounds much better!)
I too, will print out your chapters and read it one by one. I may come up with a few questions as I go.
Mary Kelly feared the Whitechapel Murderer and I don't think she would have invited anyone back to her room, unless it was someone who used to live there! Even if she had vague suspicions, he was killing other women, not her!
Catharine Eddowes was not a regular prostitute, so her killer wouldn't have been able to plan her murder and escape route first. She needed some money that night, knew how to get it, and probably thought she could trust an English-looking, stammering, harmless looking man she'd seen in Dorset Street.
While looking for something else, I stumbled on a Telegraph report, (13th Nov. I think), that mentioned someone fitting Barnett's statistics, looking suspicious in a lodging house in or near Hanbury St. That was Annie Chapman's murder...."Will you?"...."Yes".
LEANNE PERRY |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 1:23 pm: | |
No worries Marie
Hope you enjoy the read.
Regarding Eddowes. I have long entertained the thought that some sort of complicity existed in this particular case. The fact that she was in Bishopsgate Police Station for the night and was then murdered as she made her way from that police station to an unknown destination - but a destination nonetheless - and it is my believe that she was heading back to the very spot where she was originally arrested.
Eddowes had set out on the day of her arrest with three claims, firstly that she knew the identity of Jack and was going to obtain the reward, secondly that she was going to get some money, and thirdly that she would obtain that money from her daughter. We know she didn't do that as her daughter had moved to avoid her mother's sponging. But she did find some money somewhere for she was roaring drunk when arrested, this says to me that she had given up all thoughts of claiming the reward and had instead - and perhaps - decided to go straight to the source and blackmail it. Perhaps this is where her drink money came from.
If and as you read my work you will see that I edge toward a complicity between a certain Thomas Cutbush and his uncle, Executive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush of Scotland Yard, both of them were evidenced and attested to chronic paranoid schizophrenics sharing similar delusions and illusions, and it is my still fairly wobbly contention that Eddowes became aware of this complicity - please understand that I do not mean Superintendent Cutbush had his hand on the knife but he was certainly pulling a trigger - and confronted it in the safety of daylight. That safety disappeared upon her release at night, and I find it quite easy to contemplate a situation arising where certainly both Thomas and his uncle Charles would have been aware of the time that Eddowes was released.
Conjecture, but there you go.
I still have a big problem with Kelly.
Which I will explain when I get my thoughts together. What I mean is that I think can show you that it was the Ripper who killed Kelly. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 1:28 pm: | |
G'day Leanne
Ap or Wolf is fine. Mostly I get called a lot worse.
As I have just said I am still having great problems with the whole Kelly scenario, which I am resolving with the help of a bottle of Spanish brandy.
In the meantime I hope you enjoy the read and I'd be glad to hear your questions anytime. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 4:02 pm: | |
Marie & Leanne
What strikes me immediately about Kelly's murder is the time the killer had with the victim, this has always perplexed me. All the other crimes were on the move so to speak, fast and furious, and then suddenly here we have a situation where the killer spends what could have been hours instead of minutes with his victim.
This has always nagged at me and I often found myself putting Kelly's murder out of the bracket for this reason.
But I have reconsidered.
I noticed in Richard Chase's crimes that he could never seem to finish with the task, it wasn't good enough for him to murder and mutilate his victims, no, he also had to take bits and pieces back home with him and store them in the fridge, liquidise them, mince them up or just keep them hanging around his apartment for future use. These were not what you call trophies as Richard actually used them for his strange purpose and desire.
Now I can only see one motivation for such behaviour and that would be that the situations in which the victims were killed were uncomfortable, hostile and dangerous for the killer, in other words the killer was well aware that his actions in the present could well lead to his discovery and apprehension, therefore he took the bits that he seemed to crave away with him... a take away if you like. He plainly couldn't set off down the main roads of Sacremento with the entire corpse of his victim so he ordered out.
Now what do you think would happen if you suddenly put a killer of the calibre of Richard Chase in a supermarket where he could shop at his leisure, where everything was on display, easily obtainable and nicely packaged and he had all the time in the world to pick out exactly what he wanted?
Jack found himself in a supermarket and no longer needed the corner shop or the take home.
That is how I see it.
So, no, I don't think it was Barnett.
It was Jack.
For only Jack would have acted thus and Barnett is not a killer of this nature.
For it is not cunning or emotion that feeds this type of crime, it is hunger.
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 7:37 pm: | |
Monday's Update
1. physically strong
2. knowledge of local geography
3. anatomical knowledge
4. hated women
5. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic.
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
11. hated reproductive function
12. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders.
13. mutilated animals
14. self injury
15. control freak
16. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them
17. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships
18. was employed
19. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?
absent father?
20. physical abnormality?
21. precrime stressor
22. sought victims of opportunity |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 55
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 7:05 am: | |
Hi Scott, thanks for the reply!
I do agree with everything you say, especially: "if a theory requires one to connect too many dots to make it work, chances are you are following the wrong set of tracks".
I've been guilty of this in the past, and I'm starting to realize that most often, the simplest explanation is the correct one.
I'm fascinated when you say that you may be able to prove that Sickert didn't commit the crimes! I'm looking forward to reading about your findings. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 7:07 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
I've just started a new board called 'Reviewing Jack the Myth' under 'Non-Fiction Books'. Hope everyone can join in!
I've started by reading your 'Introduction' & 'Chapter One' and am hooked!
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 56
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 7:42 am: | |
AP Wolf, marvellous book! I truly enjoyed it. You have a refreshhing, and stimulating writing style, not in the least verbose, or ponderous. The book was exciting, and never once bored me. I couldn't put it down.
All in all, I remain true to my original convictions. However, you made an excellent case for Cutbush, whom I had never even considered as a serious suspect, before. He's still not my number one choice, but he's been bumped up several notches in the running, as a result of your book.
I made six pages of notes, which I consolidated into the following questions, or points. Sorry for the length of this post.
1) McNaughton (in his memorandum) may well have been defending Cutbush because his Uncle was a senior Police Officer. But that does not make Cutbush the Ripper- McNaughten certainly could have been defending an innocent man, albeit for reasons that were in the interest of his department.
2) I've always been highly dubious that Munro's "Hot potato" comment was hinting at a conspiracy. Quite simply, the case was a hot potato, people were near hysterical, the media was highly critical of the police, and the whole affair was highlighting the horrible conditions of London's poor. Social upheaval was in the air.
3) Missing files, and seemingly conflicting information could easily be the result of ineptitude. Even in these days of information technology, police departments and government agencies do make mistakes, and lose information. More often than not, this is not as a result of conspiracy.
4) I didn't see any evidence of a close relationship between Thomas and his uncle. The example that you give, of them both sharing the common delusion that they were being poisoned, is not convincing enough.
The delusion of being poisoned is a common one for paranoid schizophrenics. Thomas was apparently taking some type of medication from his doctor, which was not making him feel better- so to his mind, it is poisoning him.
It's a very sad story, but the mother of a close friend of mine is a paranoid schizophrenic. She also believes that there is a 'they', and that 'they' are trying to destroy her. In some cases, poisoning her food. When my friend moved out, his mother threw a hammer at his head. A violent act, but this woman is not a vicious killer.
Regarding the fact that he threatened to shoot his doctor in a letter, this only ties in with his uncle's consistent carrying of a firearm very loosely. I did a very quick search, and found that gun ownership was not that uncommon in Victorian England.
5) Cutbush's mother being described as 'excitable' by McNaughten does not tell me that she was also schizophrenic. Actually, it sounds to me as if she may have suffered from anxiety. As for her not being 'reliable', this is quite common for anxiety sufferers, as they have a low tolerance for stress.
6) I saw no evidence that Cutbush's mother taught him that sex was evil, or that women were dirty at all.
7) I also saw no evidence that Cutbush saw himself as a religious-type saviour, bent on ridding the world of prostitutes.
8) The article you posted from 'The Sun', reads to me like an incredibly sensationalistic piece of reporting. I'm pretty sure that many of the reporter's points, were grossly exaggerated. For instance, Cutbush slipping out of his window, and jumping over garden fences, as a youngster.
This is not that uncommon, my own parents were fairly strict with me, and as a teen, I did my fair share of slipping out the house without their knowledge (as did some of my friends). Also, I'm fairly fit (I run every day), and could hop a fence with relative ease, should I choose to do so. Yet I possess no abnormal strength, or agility.
9) Regarding Cutbush 'studying' medical textbooks: this seems to me a symptom of his obsession with his disease (syphilis), and his compulsion with trying to cure himself. His threatening to shoot his doctor, could also be a symptom of this.
10) Regarding the drawings of women in 'indecent' poses: this tells me very little. Many young men have an interest in pornography, which was not so readily available in the Victorian era, as it is today. Hence the drawings. I also wonder what was considered 'indecent', in the Victorian era.
11) Regarding Cutbush's late night walks: how do we know he walked the streets of Whitechapel, at all? As you say, no policeman claimed to have seen Cutbush on his beat. As there were several policemen around, it's more likely that Cutbush wasn't in the area, than it was part of a giant conspiracy to cover up the fact that he was.
12) You compare Jack's murders with those of Richard Chase. This is not entirely accurate, because Chase killed his victims with a gun. This type of sudden, 'blitz', or clumsy attack is common for disorganized killers. Chase didn't engage his victims in any type of social contact, before killing them.
From Larry S. Barbee, 'Introduction To The Case', Casebook:
"The autopsies constantly revealed clear indications that the victims had been strangled. In the past some writers believed that the Ripper struck from behind when the victims were bent forward, their skirts hiked up their backsides while waiting to engage in anal sex. This is a very awkward arrangement and the risk that they may scream or elude his clutch's make this unacceptable. The Ripper then lowered his victims to the ground, their heads to his left. This has been proven by the position of the bodies in relation to walls and fences that show that there was virtually no room for the murderer to attack the body from the left side. No bruising on the back of the heads shows that he lowered the bodies to the ground rather than throwing or letting them fall. Given the inclement weather and filth in the streets it is unacceptable that the prostitutes or their client would have attempted intercourse on the ground. He cut the throats when the women were on the ground. Splatter stains show that the blood pooled beside or under the neck and head of the victim rather than the front which is where the blood would flow if they had been standing up. In one case blood was found on the fence some 14 inches or so from the ground and opposite the neck wound and this shows that the blood spurted from the body while in the prone position on the ground. This method also prevented the killer from being unduly blood stained. By reaching over from the victim's right side to cut the left side of her throat, the blood flow would have been directed away from him, which would have reduced the amount of blood in which he would have been exposed. If the victim was already dead before their throats were cut, then the blood spilt would have not been very much. With the heart no longer beating the blood would not have been "pressurized," so only the blood in the immediate area of the wound would have evacuated gently from the cuts."
This method of killing shows premeditation, and skill in relieving a body of life, with the least amount of fuss, or mess.
The only similarity between Jack's, and Chase's killings, is in the subsequent mutilations, not the method of the murder.
13) Cutbush's attacks on women were completely haphazard, and opportunistic. He stabbed women in the buttocks with a knife, and had no thought to hide his actions, had no thought of the consequences of his attacks. This is typical of a disorganized offender, and is a symptom of the disorganized thought process of delusional psychotics. He was quite easily apprehended for these actions, which is again usually the case with disorganized offenders.
If he had committed the previous Ripper murders, (in a similar haphazard manner, with no thought to consequences), why was he not apprehended at the time, when police were swarming the Whitechapel area?
The fact that he was easily apprehended for stabbing women's buttocks, doesn't bode well for him having evaded capture as the ripper.
14) I'm not sure why Lawende's testimony seems to have been 'suppressed', or the reason for the press black-out at this time, but isn't it just as likely that these actions could have been seen to benefit the investigation? I'm not sure I sniff a conspiracy to shelter someone in particular.
15) You state that both Cutbush's defense, and his prosecution believed him to be Jack the Ripper, I had not read this before, could you please tell me where this information comes from? It's interesting, and I'd love to read more about it.
However, I rather suspect that both defense and prosecution were being naive in thinking this. Mental illness was not so well understood in the Victorian era, and to many people, a delusional psychotic could make a likely candidate for a killer like Jack. These days we understand mental illness better, and statistics show that only a very small percent of schizophrenics are dangerously violent.
Yes, Cutbush did commit a violent act, but so did the mother of my friend, when she threw a hammer at her son's head. This does not necesarily make either of them a killer of Jack's calibre.
16) Cutbush may have been incarcerated for life, simply because he was as mad as hatter. You make the comparison between him, and Colicott (who committed a similar offense, but only recieved a minor sentence). This is possibly because Colicott did not appear to be insane. One doesn't have to be a delusional psychotic to poke a woman in the bottom with a knife.
If Colicott didn't appear to be a raving lunatic (as Cutbush did), he may not have seemed as 'dangerous', to the thinking of that era. Hence the lighter sentence.
17) You seem to suggest a complicity between Thomas Cutbush, and his uncle, in commiting these crimes. This would mean that some of the killings, particularly the Eddowes murder, was premeditated. It seems to me unlikely that two men who obviously suffer from disordered thinking processes, could plan, and execute such crimes, and evade the consequences of those crimes so efficiently.
18) I don't think we can readily attribute Cutbush's uncle's suicide to guilt over his own, or his nephews actions.
The suicide rate for schizophrenics is very high, up to fifty percent higher than in the general population. It's estimated that half of all deaths amongst schizophrenics, are a result of suicide.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thank you for taking the time to have this conversation! I'm no crime expert, or historian, and it's an honour for me to be able to bounce my ideas off you.
|
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 57
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 7:45 am: | |
Leanne, thank you for creating a new thread for this subject.
I didn't see your post, before I posted my reply here, so I'll just paste my reply on the new thread, as well. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 9:05 am: | |
G'day Marie,
I started a new thread, because I can see this subject having alot of posts and it would deserve its own board!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 10:55 am: | |
Hi Diana,
Like Sir Robert, I have a problem with your no.16: ‘con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them’.
I just cannot believe that only con artists could have obtained the services of an East End prostitute between say, September 1888 and the early 1890s, in the customary manner. That is what no.16 implies.
Unless Jack went out of his way to be menacing in his manner with women, or failed to show them the colour of his money, or looked like the elephant man, I can't think of any reason why he would need to smooth-talk unfortunates into taking him somewhere more private, or pop out and grab them, in order to carry on killing them.
I do have a theory, though, about the lack of money found on any of the victims. He may have used alcohol and/or presents in place of coins of the realm. Why hand over cash if his victims only intended turning it into booze anyway, the first chance they got?
Polly Nichols sported a jolly new bonnet and said she had earned and spent her doss money - probably on drink - three times on the last day of her life. Mary Kelly too seemed more concerned about where her next drink was coming from than where she was going to lay her head if evicted for non-payment of rent. Perhaps Eddowes went looking for hair of the dog from the same source that had plied her with enough booze earlier to take her mind off her desperate situation and get her doing fire engine impressions instead. Annie Chapman might well have appreciated the immediacy of a warming and medicinal tot or three of brandy by the time she encountered Jack, more than the cash to go and buy some breakfast, or to save for a bed the following night. From Jack's point of view, alcohol might also have seemed a better bet than hard cash for making any lingering reservations disappear, and ridding the women of cares about personal safety in his presence.
But if Liz Stride was one of his victims he may have found her a tougher nut to crack. Did she plan to service customers in the yard, knowing there would be people nearby, and thinking the killer who had struck at least twice before would not dare strike there? Did he try to persuade her to leave the yard and go somewhere quieter? A stubborn refusal could have resulted in the initial rough handling, causing her to fall over and cry out, though not necessarily in fear of her life at that stage.
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 60
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
You posted: "I just cannot believe that only con artists could have obtained the services of an East End prostitute between say, September 1888 and the early 1890s"
Well, I'm not sure if the notion of 'con artist', or 'smooth talker' came from my posts, but if it did, I'd like to clarify.
By 'con', I simply meant, someone who would engage the services of a prostitute, in order to get them in a private place, with the intention of killing them.
The same would apply for a killer who would get a prostitute drunk, with the intention of killing her. The act of plying her with drink, is a premeditative act. This would rule out a killer whose victims were purely targets of opportunity.
He doesn't have to be a 'smooth talker', he had just had to offer either money, or alcohol. Engage the victim socially. In order to do that, he would have to appear like a regular guy.
But I really like your theory of the killer supplying the women with alcohol.
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 7:32 pm: | |
Tuesday's Update
1. physically strong
2. knowledge of local geography
3. anatomical knowledge
4. hated women
5. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic.
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
11. hated reproductive function
12. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders.
13. mutilated animals
14. self injury
15. control freak
16. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate
17. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships
18. was employed
19. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?
absent father?
20. physical abnormality?
21. precrime stressor
22. sought victims of opportunity
23. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?)
24. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 6:03 am: | |
Hi Marie,
Yep, I agree that He doesn't have to be a 'smooth talker', he had just had to offer either money, or alcohol.
I'm not sure he had to Engage the victim socially as such. As long as his appearance and behaviour was broadly in line with any of the other men who went off with prostitutes at that time but left them alive, the women would have only their gut instinct to guide them, and even that would be dulled by excess alcohol, or dire need.
Love,
Caz
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 6:29 am: | |
Diana,
The list that you have comprised, without a doubt proberly some characteristics would apply.
But I believe we can simplify that by saying he could be anybody 18years and over, that proberly had no medical knowledge, only disliked women of that class,that had no experience in killing until Tabram,proberly of white origin,may well have been a control freak,possibly have religious beliefs.
But I do not believe that he necessary came from an dysfunctional family , or mutalated animals , or inflicted self injury, or had a abnormality, or hated reproductive functions, or filled them with alcohol.
I believe we are looking for a person who had strong moral beliefs,that saw prostitution as sinful, and his obsession blistered away until it exploded into the act of murder.
Question being who?.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 7:01 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
Tell me mate, what kind of killer do you believe Barnett was and how do you come to this conclusion? What kind of killer was 'Jack the Ripper', exactly? Does anyone know for sure?...NO GUESSING!
I wouldn't say Barnett was fuelled only by his jealousy. Add to that his hatred of alchoholic prostitutes, tormentation of sensless people about his speach and his frustration about not being able to provide for his 'belle'!
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 1:46 pm: | |
Well Leanne
I wasn't trying to put your suspect down or anything like that.
My thinking was based on Michael Kidney's relationship with Long Liz Stride, and the jealousy and hatred that existed in that volatile and fragile relationship. Now I believe, quite firmly, that Kidney killed Stride in a fit of rage when he found her with another man, and as you know that was a simple stabbing with no mutilations whatsoever.
I just cannot see a situation arising where an angry man might do what was done to Kelly. Only a complete and utter manaic would instrument such destruction on a fellow human being. Someone who has stepped far beyond the norm of society.
Such a beast would leave footprints we could follow, but I see no footprints for Barnett.
That's all I was saying. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 64
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 5:51 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I'm not sure if we have a different interpretation of 'engaging' someone socially.
To my mind, a killer who 'engages their victim socially', is someone who will offer money (or alcohol) in return for sex. The intention being to get the victim to take the killer to a quiet place, where he may kill her.
I agree with you, that it probably wasn't an enormous feat, to get a Whitechapel prostitute to take you somewhere quiet for sex. But I do think that the women must have been more jumpy than usual, hence our killer should have probably looked like a regular punter.
Seeing as the victims were found in a place that would normally be where a prostitute would take her client for sex, it is reasonable to conclude that sex was 'agreed' upon by both parties.
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 174
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 6:13 pm: | |
G'day Wolf,
How about an angry schizophrenic man?
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 65
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 6:20 pm: | |
Hi AP Wolf,
I must respectfully take issue with this statement: "Only a complete and utter manaic would instrument such destruction on a fellow human being".
To be a 'complete raving lunatic', one would have to not understand the difference between right and wrong, or have the capacity to comprehend one's actions.
Many horrific serial murderers do understand their actions- but are simply incapable of feeling regret for them.
So I would say that one wouldn't 'have' to be a raving lunatic, at all. One could simply be as cold as ice.
(But I don't want to turn this discussion into 'psychopathic vs. schizophrenic' redux, so I'll quit being argumentative).
For tonight, at least....
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
