|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Scott Medine
Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 2:27 pm: |       |
What are your feelings on whether or not the victims had any degree of trust in the person who ulimately became their killer? In particular, those after Chapman.
Peace,
Scott |
Scott Nelson
Police Constable
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 3:42 pm: | |
Yes they did. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 117
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 4:16 pm: | |
No, they didn't. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 4:31 pm: | |
Hi Guys,
I think we can safely assume that the killer gave a hint of trust to all the victims, no woman no matter how desperate for money , would have ventured into secluded spots, with a person who appeared derranged, Mary Kelly for instance , who was well educated on these murders would hardly have taken a person of strange behaviour to her room, she would have either have trusted her client complicitely or her killer was an intruder whilst asleep.
RIchard. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 93
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 5:22 pm: | |
Hi,
Yes, I think his victims trusted Jack. What particularly leads me to believe this, are the murders of Eddowes, and Kelly.
I'm fairly certain that Mary brought her killer into her room (because of the door issue). As Richard stated, I don't think she would have taken someone obviously aggressive, or threatening home.
Eddowes was seen talking quietly with her killer, her hand on his chest. Lawende stated that she didn't appear to be resisting him, and that he felt no reason to be afraid of them.
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 8:46 pm: | |
If he used the cuckoo clock method of popping out of gates, then no trust was necessary. Otherwise, yes. |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 39
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 5:27 am: | |
That's why he killed after midnight - bit conspicuous, popping out 12 times.
Robert |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 97
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 6:54 am: | |
"bit conspicuous, popping out 12 times"
 |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 8:09 am: | |
Laugh on cruel world. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 8:33 pm: | |
Mr. Nelson has the ability to say more in three words than many others do in thirty.
Saddam Radka |
Peter Evans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 6:06 am: | |
Unless the killings were the work of an opportunist, which seems highly unlikely, the victims must have had a high element of trust in whoever it was. No woman, no matter how drunk or desperate, is going to go off with someone she suspects may well try to kill her.
Trust, under the circumstances of the summer of 1888, in my view, would stem from having a knowledge of the individual concerned. That does not just mean anyone whom a victim might have known from the local area. A proposition from the local vicar for instance, or someone the prospective victim did not feel had a legitmate reason for approaching her in the middle of the night, would again set the alarm bells ringing.
I believe, therefore, JTR had been a previous client of most of the women. Who better to set a nervous mind at rest than a tried and tested punter?
That also leads me to assume JTR was in regular employment, or at least had sufficient funds to hand in the form of disposable income. I also infer from this that JTR was local to the area. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 9:53 pm: | |
Peter,
The only trust that the victim's needed to have in the Ripper is that he was going to pay for their services. These women were trying to make money the old, old fashioned way. As long as the Ripper had the cash, they'd have followed him anywhere - which they all did.
In this sense, he was an opportunist. He didn't need to be a previous client. These women weren't prostitutes by trade (except, perhaps for Kelly). They did it to make ends meet. So any John with the cash was a welcome sight.
We also need to keep in mind that there were hundreds of equally desitute and willing women working the streets every night. The Ripper chose the nights he killed because of his own reasons, not because those were the only nights he could find a prostitute.
I agree, though, that he most likely had a job and most likely had disposable income. He'd need it to be able to do the things that he did. (And if anyone wants to start that argument again, just ask me why I think this.)
B |
James Eric Carter
Police Constable
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 5
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 8:14 pm: | |
I think that even with money there had to be a bit more trust, not actually knowing the victims but at least be to put them at ease to get them to go with him.
As we have seen with most serial killers in our time, most notable would have to be Ted Bundy he seemed normal to most people that he ment and got at least 19 young women to get into his car with him.
Wit and charm can give a sense of trust enough so that the killer could get the victims to go along with him, and chose her own place of death. The money didn't hurt though.
Eric |
Petra Zaagman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 3:47 am: | |
His victims trusted Jack at least in a few ways.
They needed money, and why should they go with someone who looked like he couldn't pay them?
I think Jack looked like womeone with enough money to them. I read that serial killers tend to be charming, I think Jack won't be an exception.
Furthermore, they seemed to go with him voluntary. Who of us would be stupid enough to voluntary go with someone who appears like a lunatic? (I really hope no one reads this and thinks, hey I would!)
And, after the first victims fell, they must have been more suspicious.
If a costumer looks like a lunatic, they would not go with him. They were more suspicious, so Jack had to be an outwardly 'normal' person.
I don't know if my fantasy is running now, but maybe he even reassured them somehow.
(Like: 'calm down, do I look like the Ripper to you?')
This makes me set these points:
1) he looked prosperous enough to them.
((most witnesses describe a well-dressed man too))
2) he was outwardly normal
(( If he wasn't, they wouldn't go with him))
3) He might have been a charming person
((Most serial killers tend to be charming)) |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 298
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 8:40 am: | |
Hi Petra,
I have a feeling of deja vu regarding your points here, I think you have raised some of them earlier, but I'll comment on them just the same, even though I think you by now know where I stand on the matter.
Firstly, you make to much of his trustworthyness. They were desperate for money and really had no other choice. There actually was a short period (on the hight of the killings) where some of them laid low on their activities because they estimated their occupation to be too risky during the circumstances. But that was only temporary. I can assure you, Petra, they had no other choice and couldn't afford to be scared or picky -- such were the social conditions at the time in East End and other cities. Besides, what were their alternatives? Starv to death or sleeping on the street? So he actually didn't need to be persuasive or charming. Most of their clients were lower middle class or working class anyway (Westenders generally didn't lurk their way into East End), so it is a bit of a myth that they should have attracted wealthier clients; such a man should really stand out from the environment and it was also as such the general descriptions of the Ripper looked like (not like a raving lunatic or poor man), so if they would have been suspicios of anyone, it would be of a man looking like that. A wealthy man genrally used the neater bordellos and better looking prostitutes in the City or West End districts.
You can't approach this with our society and way of thinking as a basis -- you must look at the living and social conditions at the time.
Comments to your point:
1) No, there are other more valid and opposite descriptions than those of a well-dressed man. The most "popular" is the man looking like something of a seaman, with rough clothing. And we don't even can be sure of whether any of the men from the witness statements actually were the Ripper.
2) I think you are a bit judgemental here. A sick individual doesen't necessarily has to "look" sick. It is not that easy. And he doesen't necessarily have to act like a lunatic all the time in all situation. That is a complete misunderstanding. And what is "normal", really?
3) No, there are a lot of serial killers that are NOT charming. But since the charming and manipulate psycopath are the one that most attracts curiosity and attention, many wrongly believe that that is the case. Not everybody is like the Ted Bundy character, and there are no indications of that the Ripper was either.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 8:14 pm: | |
The killer would have appeared charming and gentle in his manner, as Annie Chapman had turned her back to the killer, this was evident to the position of the bruising on her face (although she had teeth missing, no teeth were found at the crime scene, so the killer had not bashed her in the face rendering her unconcious because she had been facing him), also Catherine Eddowes was seen talking to a man, feeling very comfortable in his presence. This evidentley shows trust even though poor unfortunates were almost certainly alert and didn't intend being 'JTR's' victim. Mary Kelly, like i have said before would have seen her killer before, because of the missing key to her door ( as the police had to have the door bashed in on 9 nov, as the key had been missing for a few weeks), perhaps the killer after killing Eddowes approached another prostitute soon after 30 sept and scared her away, so he felt the need to procure sure trust of his next victim, this would be visiting her on on occassion then leaving her unharmed, then meeting her on another occassion so that she would be sure to remember him and trust him, maybe that little joke that Mary had with a gentleman that George Hutchinson saw her with, was something he said so that she would remember him...As George heard and i quote ' you'll be alright now for what i have told you'.
Anyone got any thoughts on this theory? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
