|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 1:22 pm: |       |
Blimey, the guy with the bowling bag must have been crazy - he'll never knock the skittles down with a head - the nose and ears send it off course.....
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 519
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 2:35 pm: | |
Yes blimey indeed. Well, what can I say, we all have our hobbies... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 8:35 am: | |
Hi Erin.
The point you made; I consider the Ripper to exhibit a "mixed" presentation. That is to say, there are some elements of an organized killer, and an equal number of disorganized traits. The leaving of the bodies at the scene, the extensive and apparently purposeless mutilations, the blitz-style attacks--these point to someone who, in my opinion (one shared by John Douglas, I might add), is not of sound mind.
I couldn't agree with more! That was my next point to Glen too. Which means he would be more of a lust murderer. Now i am sure you have seen this but just to let you know where i am coming from;
The lust murderer is oriented towards deviant and sexually sadistic assault and is distinguished from other sex related homicide offenders by his involvement in mutilation of the victim. Lust murderers can be organized or disorganized. According to studies conducted by the FBI, most of these offenders are disorganized and do not engage in penis penetration of the victim. Instead, they may masturbate upon their victims and engage in post mortem mutilation. There may be displacement of the breasts of females (Defeminization), post mortem attack of the genitalia of males and females, evisceration, the insertion of objects into the body cavities of victims and sometimes anthropophagy, which is the consumption of human flesh and blood.
Ok, this is yet a pointless exercise, but Glenn please do not tell me that i have it wrong;Yes, I know about the FBI:s profiling methods and I find them very interesting and fruitful (although it's not an exact science), but you checked the wrong category!!! I strongly believe (and so does John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood from FBI:s profiling unit as well) that Jack the Ripper is a typical example of a DISORGANIZED killer, maybe a paranoid schizofrenic - absolutely not a cunning, intelligent psychopath.
Here you say that it 'is not an exact science', and that you 'strongly believe'. HOw can you say he is not cunning? He got away didnt he? He must have been able to control some areas of the attacks, which indicates care and control...a good level of intelligence and planning. As i said earlier, it was not that hard to dodge the authorities in those days, but his crimes escalated.
He brought his own weapon, which indicates he planned the attacks. A trait of an organised offender.
Some of the attacks were blitz attacks, but to think of them as complete impulse, i dont know about that.
To flat out say that i am wrong is a little harsh. Glenn, i would like to see argument, like a debate. When it comes to facts, correct me. But when it comes to identity and who he was, it may well be speculation for ever!
The fact that he tried to cut off their heads dosnt necessarily mean that he was trying too. It could have been anger. The knifes he used where oblivously sharp enough to take the heads off.
Glenn, I never made it certain that the ripper was a doctor! I pointed out that, yes you would have to know something, a butcher could have done it. But, thats why i mentioned the fact that it was so easy to become a sergion in the civil war! It would be easy to learn the basics of anatomy and how to cut up a body there.
NOw, back then a army uniform was not a 'costume', it was a uniform. What would you think of a man in uniform if you sore him in the street? Mind out of the gutter Glenn! You would see him as a respectible man, not one who would commit violent crimes. I certainly wouldnt think that he was wearing a 'costume'.
Sometimes he could have been lucky, but sometimes he could have planned it, or known the roots. Who knows. To say that you think that he was to anti-social and in-secure is a bit far out there. We cant even began to place him in those catergories. Thats a leap from the profiling.
This is fun Glenn! hehe.
Talk soon my swedish friend. |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi All. I think Tumblety was too much of an exhibitionist and as such an extravert which is not how I see JtR but rather a quiet intraverted person suffering delusions and being "ordered" to carry out the murders.I therefore agree with Glenn mostly.Where I disagree is about his intelligence. People who suffer from the illness are often outstandingly bright although you would not believe it when you meet them after they have been broken by it.My mother was a therapist and worked closely with a large number of people thus diagnosed and it really was a case of"what a noble mind is here o"er thrown!" utterly devastating and frightful.Some of these people had been brilliant scholars,artists and the like .I dont remember any who had less than average intelligence but I know some whose intelligece was eventually eroded by the condition.So I believe theat JtR could have been anyone of average or above average intelligence and that his illness was instucting him to do what he did.I also think that the overwhelming nature of the illness finally got to much for him and this is what those police meant who said he either committed suicide or ended his days in an asylum.Bes.tSevern |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 12:51 pm: | |
Hi All,
If Jack had been trying hard to decapitate one or more victims, his failed efforts may have made him so fed up with the idea that he dumped it in favour of mutilating the faces instead, and finding how much he enjoyed what he did to Eddowes took it to an extreme with Kelly.
Assuming he had time to do whatever he fantasised about doing when he had Kelly all to himself, and whatever he would have been physically capable of doing to her with the weapon(s) he had on him, it may be worth remembering what he actually did do and what he didn't do to her, and what he didn't take away with him.
Love,
Caz
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 528
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 5:13 pm: | |
Yes, Peter, this is quite fun, even though I've heard all the arguments before. I think some - but just some - of our differeces is a result of misunderstandings, though.
Firstly, when you quote people, will you please try to make this in a clear way, by putting the quote between quotation marks or seperate it from the text in another way. Now everything is a complete mess.
Once again, my sloppy reading. But if your point was that the Ripper was a disorganized lust murderer, which I agree with, then why do you write or quote a dissertation about organized killers, and how do you apply the disorganized offender on Tumblety (which I believe was the main subject here) - Tumblety is indeed not an example of a disorganized personality, as far as we know. What IS your opinion really?
A disorganized killer doesen't do that much planning, Peter. He acts on instincts. You can't say that the Ripper is disorganized and then belive him to be cunning and manipulative. I'm not saying it's impossible, that these characteristics fit better an organized killer like a sociopath or psycopath (i prefer to use the old term, Erin).
The argument about that he was able to keep out of reach of the police and get away is unfortunately just as old as the whole Ripper investigation. Now, I'm afraid we're slipping off the subject thread about Tumblety here, but let's go over it:
a) The police had absolutely no experience whatsoever in how to handle a serial killer.
b) He knew the area and probably also lived there.
c) He was an ordinary person and inhabitant of East End who managed to blend in among the other hundreds of thousands.
This means that it wouldn't take a genius to escape the police, just some good knowledge about the neighbourhood and a bit of luck.
As far as I see it, there is no planning whatsoever in these killings. He may have studied and stalked his victims for some minutes (since we don't know his real motives, if there are any, this is hard to state with accuracy) but apart from this, these are random killings, as most lust murders are. The idea of planning doesen't go together with how he left his victims on the street or the big risks he took by murdering them. He could very well be a mix of an organized and disorganized offender as in being in control during the killing itself and as he was trying to get away. But there are many indications on that he wasn't that intelligent (and when I mean intelligent, I mean the level of intelligence that the crimes indicates - not his intelligence in general) and absolutely not cunning. A disorganized killer - even if he has some organized character features - doesen't interact with people that good and I don't see any signs of manipulating the victims. He didn't have to - they needed the money, and prostitutes are the easiest and most exposed and vulnareble victims to choose. This indicates either self-secureness, intelligence or cunning.
These are the FBI:s own views on the matter, and although I think there exists a lot of other interesting formulas of profiling as well, I think they make sense. It IS possible that he became in control and showed organized signs during modus operandi and his escape, but I don't think that is the case - it becomes too contradictive. I actually don't see any organized features in the killings at all. If you look at the murders of Eddowes and Mary Kelly there is too much frenzy and unnecessary violence involved, especially in the signature, to indicate control or an organized character. I may be wrong, but I really don't buy it. So I'd rather go for a complete disorganized killer and not a mix, but this is really a matter of opinion.
"NOw, back then a army uniform was not a 'costume', it was a uniform. What would you think of a man in uniform if you sore him in the street? Mind out of the gutter Glenn! You would see him as a respectible man, not one who would commit violent crimes. I certainly wouldnt think that he was wearing a 'costume'."
I don't know what you mean by "costume", but if you refer to my talk about a DISGUISE, then you have got it completely wrong. I didn't mean that his military uniform was a costume; the argument regarding Tumblety wearing a possible disguise, is that he dresses up in poor man's clothes to fit into the East End environment, since his uniform would attract to much attention. That was what I've meant. This argument (used by many who are in favour of Tumblety as a suspect) is well known and often stated.
Regarding the military uniform interpreted as a respectable outfit: that's just the thing, Peter. Once again you're missing the point, a well-dressed man or someone dressed in a uniform would attract to much attention and make it harder for him to get away. Quite early on in the investigation, the rumour had it that the Ripper was a well-dressed doctor with a black bag. Several such individuals were spotted and they were immidiately spotted by East Enders and taken to the police. Once again, if you were going to committ murder in Whitechapel, would you dress in a military "respectable" uniform? I wouldn't give you ten minutes... That was exactly the kind of suspects they were looking for!
"To say that you think that he was to anti-social and in-secure is a bit far out there. [...] Thats a leap from the profiling."
Absolutely not, Peter. Criminal profiling isn't - as I said - an exact science, it's just personal interpretations of the crimes and the circumstances surrounding the crime scenes, but him being insecure in relation to women and being anti-social is what these kinds of facts tell me. And they are not my own invention either, I must add; Douglas, Olshaker and Hazelwood (the latter an expert on sexual offenders) has given the Ripper these credentials as well. It is exactly these kinds of interpretations that are possible within profiling. And these credentials certainly don't fit what we know about Tumblety (and not many of the other features either).
Keep it up, Peter. I'm waiting for you...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 11:48 pm: | |
You talk like these are absolutes;
He knew the area and probably also lived there.
c) He was an ordinary person and inhabitant of East End who managed to blend in among the other hundreds of thousands.
You don't know this for sure, but it sounds like in your mind it is.
If infact he was insecure around woman and anti-social, why dosnt Tumblety fit this criteria?
He moved around alot, a sign of instability which can stem to antisocial and insecure behaviour.
I doubt he was that intelligent too. He ran a shanky medical practice, counting on peoples lack of knowledge to make money.
He also joined the military which was easy to do then.
He was also in trouble with the law alot over his life. A bit anti social dont you think?
Anyway, this is going around in circles! I would love to hear some of your theories on other suspects though Glenn, truly.
Cheers. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 535
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 10:50 am: | |
Hi Peter,
Well, of course nothing is certain and there is no such thing as "absolute" in the Ripper case. But the points you refer to is what the nature of the crimes tells me, at least according to profiling theories. If he managed to get away quite easily, I think it's logical to assume that he knew the area and the streets quite well - experience with these kinds of killers also tells us that they are usually comitted within a geographical range not too far from the murderer's residence.
We don't really know that much about Tumblety and especially after his escape from Londom, he is a bit of a mystery, so we can't - as you yourself correctly imply - be that certain about his personal character. But the impression I've got is that he was quite social in his way to interact with people; a disorganized man couldn't run a medical practice, even if he was a charlatan or a sloppy surgeon. Just because you have trouble with the law doesen't mean that you are anti-social in THAT particular sense or that he would be untelligent. There are a lot of intelligent people sitting in prisons.
So I really think it is a matter of opinion here, Peter, and what character type we assume the Ripper to be. Nothing else. Tumblety just doesen't fit into my picture of him, but that's just me.
I really don't have any favourite suspect myself, but I think to date that the David Cohen/"Polish Jew" theory has proved more appealing than others; one reason being, that such a character type would fit the profile of Jack the Ripper in almost every detail, and there are other circumstances as well that makes it interesting.
Regarding other suspects, I prefer to discuss these under their own subject threads, so we may get back to that, Peter.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Perry Cremeans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 4:09 am: | |
Hi all. I just wanted to drop a few words about Tumblety as a Ripper suspect. I think he does fit the "profile" very well. If you look at the Ripper crimes you will notice the savageness of them. Tumblety was known to have a deep hatred for women. Now knowing this, it is quite possible for him to escalate the viciousness of the attacks.
I'm not saying he was the Ripper, just saying that out of all the suspects so far, he seems to fit the most.
Regards,
Perry |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 638
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 4:30 pm: | |
That is unfortunately to stretch it a bit too far, Perry. "Hatred of women" is one thing - butchering them is quite another. One can't draw such conclusions. There is, as far as I know, no evidence whatsoever of him being violent enough for these kind of crimes.
Let me point out a few other dismissal features: too old, too tall, too intelligent, too flamboyant in his ways (he would have been easily recognized) etc. I could go on and on. Even if he were vicious and a somewhat odd character, I wouldn't describe him as murderous. When I look at the crime scene evidence and the "savageness" of the murders, I see a killer that is quite more insane in a distorted manner than Dr. Tumblety appearently was (although I wouldn't call him "normal").
The only thing that I can see in favour for his candidacy is the police's great interest in him (and the fact that he obviously was followed all the way to the States). But then again, he wasn't the only one to attract attention for police investigations abroad.
No, he doesen't fit the profile at all, and neither any of the witness descriptions (for what it's worth...). We are certainly not looking for someone like Dr. Tumblety here, Perry. Not in my opinion.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Mikael
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
One thing that has been itching me for some time about Tumblety...
One of the objections regarding Tumblety is that people say he was too flamboyant (height, moustache, personality, etc) and that he would've been noticed by witnesses, residents...
However, am I wrong or did Tumblety live in the Whitechapel area during the murders? That means that murder or not, people would've noticed Tumblety everywhere he passed. That means police would've been able to get easy info on Tumblety's whereabouts, and there would've likely been many reports about Tumblety's activities, both during the day and during the night...
Again, unless I am mistaken, such reports/testimonies/info don't exist. And yet Tumblety was a resident of the Whitechapel area for many weeks/months. So obviously he was able to keep a low profile.
Now as to the motives of such an attitude, it could mean many things: either Tumblety was the Ripper. Or he was just involved in homosexual activities and didn't want to get caught. Or he knew police was keeping an eye on him so decided to maintain a low-key appearance...
But any way, one thing is clear: whether Tumblety was the Ripper or not, he was obviously keen not to be noticed too often, and he succeeded.
So IMO that pretty much destroys the theory that Tumblety's physical/mental appearance discards him as a Ripper suspect. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
A good point, Mikael.
However, regarding Tumblety and the police... As far as I know he was actually picked up by the police during the later Ripper scare for obscene or improper activities of some sort, so he obviously wasn't that discrete.
But I must admit, as far as details is concerned, I am no expert on Tumblety.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 9:12 pm: | |
I just finished reading Stewart Evans' book
Jack The Ripper..The First American Serial Killer, which is about the Lodger and Tumblety.
Very interesting read. Tumblety would be a good suspect if he wasnt so Damn Tall! Thats the only thing about him that makes me dismiss him as a serious suspect. He was 6 ft. tall.
Paul
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1745
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 5:01 am: | |
Hi Paul,
I just read it myself as well and I agree that it's a good read.
Well, actually his height is not that extreme compared to a couple of the other witness descriptions. Looking into it for comparison, that part is a bit of an exaggeration and the difference do lie within the error margin of witness descriptions in general.
I find his general appearance to be a bigger problem, though. If he was Jack the Ripper, then he was not seen by any witness whatsoever. OK, he used to wear a peaked cap on occasion, but that moustache...
Some have said that the moustache might be a fake, which he took off during the Whitechapel murders, something I feel to be an incredible construction. The idea of the fake moustache renders from a picture where the ends are pointing in different directions. However, this can be easily done with moustache wax, and we must also remember that he has a large moustache on all pictures we have of him. So I don't think it was a fake, and I am absolutely certain that would have been noticed by witnesses.
I do feel the Lodger story to be interesting, though. I think it's verified by quite many different sources (and still recaptured in a similar way) in order to be classified as genuine.
But if the lodger was Tumblety is of course another question. I don't necessarily believe that they were one and the same. Surely there were other "medical men" from America in London and East End besides Tumblety.
We must also remember that the story of him keeping uteruses in glass jars is totally unverified and comes from a second-hand source.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 64
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
Just to be a skeptic again (but at least this time with my folklore education added in), the Lodger story very easily could be something that got made up along the way with absolutely no basis in fact.
A story told by lots of sources with similar details doesn't have to be anything more than just a tale that people liked to tell. In fact, the sheer number of people saying it happened to them makes it pretty clear that most of them were wrong. It's possible there was a true event that sparked it, but, like with any other urban legend, that can be very hard to track down. Most of them turn out to be completely baseless, though.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1750
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
Yes, I am aware of that too, and I didn't say that I truly believed it was relevant in the Ripper context. However, several news paper accounts (for what it's worth) with actual names connected to the story do exists, which at least makes it a bit more meaty than other folklore myths connected to the case, like Richard's 39 Theory and the grave spitting incident.
The sources to the Lodger story may not be of the most reliable character, and unfortunately we can't find any verification of it in the police material (but a lot of that is missing anyway). However, I have seen much worse and several news paper points at the fact that the police indeed were interested in the Lodger and searched for him - and made rather detailed accounts about it, indicating that it just wasn't another oral tale. Then, if it really had something to do with the Ripper is another question.
Unfortunately no existing police document can truly verifiy this but it's all we have. It's enough not to dismiss it either, though.
And once again, it is OK to be a sceptic.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:22 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
Whats up? What is also interesting is the description of the guy that came into Mr. Carthy's shop(was it?) that asked for Lusks address. Very similiar to tumblety minus the beard...but he may have grown a beard. Thats probably a coincidence, but, nevertheless the descriptions are similiar. See ya.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1753
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:36 pm: | |
Hey Paul,
What's up, man? Fine here.
Hmmm... don't remember that part; have to look it up.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 8:25 pm: | |
Glenn,
Its not in Evans' book, Its in Sugden's book,
its in The Companion, probably in a few others as well. Its just a report of a strange guy coming in to the shop and asking for directions to The Vigilance Commitee and asking Lusks adress and all that. The girl who was working in the shop was alarmed by the guys actions(ie,
he was acting suspiciously) and called for a constable. I think the constable questioned him in the street. Anyway, its something like that. But check in the "Letters and Communications" section of Sugdens book, I think that is where I read it.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1754
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 8:59 pm: | |
Hey Paul,
Aaaaah yes, I remember that from a statement, now that you mention it, about that bloke who asked for Lusk's address and - I think - hung around his house.
I'll check it out later; I'm in a tight jam at the moment. I'll check out the Companion as well, it should be in there and it's quite possible that's where I've read it, I haven't opened Sugden in a long time now.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page