|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Neale Carter
Police Constable
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 7
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 11:14 pm: |       |
The fact that no one was ever tried for these murders or has been conclusively identified since really intigues me. Especially when they mostly took place in public spaces in a city where people, particularly prostitutes, quickly became alarmed by his doings.
The generally accepted suspects can be assigned to one or more of the several possibilities for his non-detection. I don't know if this will advance us anywhere but it I think it must be considered in arguing for any particular suspect over another, ie. how and why did he get away with it both at the time and ever since.
An initial list of reasons for non-detection in the 19th century would be:
- sheer luck
- incompetance of police/authorities
- conspiracy by police/authorities
- brilliant and precise planning and execution (or capability thereof)
I have a lot of trouble with the conspiracy theories, as Gary has pointed out, the gaps in the evidence are used as reinforcement for the theory. I also have some sympathy for many of the police; we tend to judge them sometimes with 100 years hindsight (although Warren's destruction of the Ghoulston St writing in unforgiveable).
The fact that the killings stopped obviously assisted his remaining unidentified. This also needs to be explained in any theory. Some reasons would be:
- died
- voluntarily ceased (resumed normal life)
- moved away
- incarcerated (prison or institution)
Various suspects fit some or all one of these factors better than others, eg. Druitt's candidacy is based almost entirely on the timing of his death. Hopefully this slant may lead to some interesting thoughts.
Neale
|
Glenn A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 4:47 pm: | |
In addition, some comments on the reasons for why the killings stopped (I ran out of time during my last message):
Now, I haven't yet been able to find time to more carefully study enough scientific works concerning criminal profiling, so the following are my own personal views (so far), based on my experiences and my common sense.
- I think we definitively can rule out the possibility that the Ripper "voluntarely ceased" or resumed to normal life. I don't believe it's possible, especially as his violence and savagery seemed to increase with each murder. It is not likely for a murderer of his caliber to choose to stop. The Mary Kelly murder shows us that he now totally had lost control.
- Moved away. This is, in my opinion, the hardest one to establish. If this was the case, then we probably must assume that he continued his crimes elsewhere. I haven't yet have time to study this (not on this message board either), but have we any indications of similar murders in another part of the world in the following years after 1888? Most likely, murders in such an extreme fashion should normally had been detected and displayed in the media (of course, we can't be sure of this).
- My bet is that the murders probably stopped because JTR simply died (from natural causes, diseases etc.) or that he was incarcerated. Looking at the lunacy in his last murders -- if we decide that these should be Eddows and Kelly -- it is not impossible that he became so unpredictable, violent and instabile that he was sent to a mental institution (maybe without being discovered as Jack the Ripper) or that he -- after the traumatic outburst in the last one -- simply took his own life (since there after this would be no way back for him mentally).
So your points 1 and 4 appears in my opinion to be the most likely ones. How this apply to the different suspects, is something that can be further discussed, of course.
All the best, Neale
Glenn L Andersson
crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 8:26 am: | |
Hi Neale.
An interesting compilation of thoughts, I think.
In my studies of murder crimes and of the police force in Sweden during the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, I've partly come to similar conclusions in some of "my" cases.
I agree with you that we tend to come down to hard on the police forces of the time; even if scientific methods for crime detection and identifying of criminals had been outlined in the late 19th century (especially in France), there was still a problem with lack of experience in handling such cases. Some blunders were obviously made by the London police in the case of Jack the Ripper, mostly in the handling of physical evidence, and I it's only in connection with the Mary Kelly murder we can see more satisfying ambitions in detection work as we know it, such as in sealing off the crime scene area, taking photographs at the crime scene and not letting anyone slip in or out of the area.
But even with that in mind, it's probably not fair to pass judgements on the police in this case. With a lack of experience in such cunning and violent murders, we must expect some kind of confusement and even serious errors. Some of the new investigation methods were, like many other new reforms, seen with a bit of suspicion and then of course there were political and internal intrigues that added to the slowness of the administration machine. This was totally natural during the turn of the century and we can even see it today. Taking the police forces in the bigger cities in consideration, they probably did as well as they could. We must also remember that the Ripper murders took place in an area where it's habitants in general felt aversion and suspions against the police, a detail that certainly not made their detection work any easier.
When I made research for my latest book, I found great differences in police work between different cities. In the semi-large swedish towns the knowledge of investigation methods were as non-existent as they were on the countryside. No sealing off, no photographs, no police schetches etc. To make it worse, arrogans were a common and characterizing element of the police officials -- most of them came from the military field. In the larger cities like Malmö, Stockholm and Gotheburg things were slightly better (for its time) and were showing some similarities to how the London police force operated.
Like you I have problems with conspiracy theories -- they mostly spring out of myths and the general public's suspicions against the police and the authorities (as well as against the wealthy bourgoisi). And that goes for the Jack the Ripper case as well.
Sorry about the groping english, folks. Not used to write in English.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
crime historian, Sweden |
Neale Carter
Police Constable
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 9
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 11:46 pm: | |
Glenn,
Firstly your english is fine - better than many native speakers in fact.
On the previous incarnation of these boards there was extensive debate regarding criminal profiling and its usefulness in identifying JtR. You may be interested in obtaining the CD-ROMs of these. Perhaps someone could summarize the main arguments and outcomes from these discussions.
I agree that it is generally accepted that serial killers rarely cease of their own volition but this is largely based on those who have been studied and therefore caught (or at least identified). As several people have pointed out we have no knowledge of serial killers who are never caught and may cease their activities for reason we can only speculate on. I do agree this is unlikely but I don't believe we should rule it out altogether.
As for moving away, or more precisely, discontinuing any connection to Whitechapel, this is as you say diffuclt to prove. Especially with the little knowledge we have about some suspects, eg Hutchinson, who I don't think has been identified yet in birth, death or census records.
There are reports of JtR style murders in several countries after 1888 - see the newspaper reports for Nicaragua and Michael Conlon's dissertation on the Carrie Brown murder in New york.
I also agree that death or incarceration is the most likely reason for the murders ending - the progressive nature of the attacks leading to the atrocity in Miller's Court can argue this. There seems nowhere to go in terms of butchering a human body. To me it is the dichotomy of the apparent frenzied nature of the "ripping" with the cool, calculated nature of the victim selection/luring and the getaway that is perplexing.
For what its worth I've assigned the various factors to some well known suspects.
Barnett
- continued to live in the area
- as a market porter doesn't obviously seem the type to construct and execute a brilliant, cunning plan
- no hint a conspiracy theory
To be JtR he need to rely soley on luck (in not being observed during or immediatlely after the murder/s) and some level of incompetence or confusion by the police.
Druitt
- commited suicide shortly after Kelly murder
- school master; may have had ability to undertake cunning plan (also rules out Baldrick!)
- no conspriacy
- police incompetance neutral
Only reason for candidacy based around Mcnaghten relating timing of suicide.
D'onston Stephenson
- theorised to have constructed and executed inticately complex plan around location and timing of murders as part of ritual
- did not move away immediately
- actually injected himself into police enquiry; could have known of or even prompted poor investigation
Sickert
- continued to live area
- no evidence of high level planning, eg. timing of police rounds
- several whacko conspiracy theories but are tenuous to say to least
To argue for Sickert one is saying that he substantially relied on luck and police bumbling to get away with it. I don't think Ms Cornwell even got that far.
Although we may never know why these murders were committed, when we know how he escaped detection we'll be closer to knowing who he was.
Neale |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 4:12 am: | |
Hi All,
In 1888/9, if an uncaptured, active serial killer had suddenly died, become disabled or too sick to carry on, or been incarcerated, I'm not sure what the police could ever have done to identify him, without either a confession, or some sort of physical evidence tying him directly to the murders, eg a 'trophy' that could only have come from a scene of crime.
Even today, killers who target strangers and have no obvious motive are often only identified because they keep on killing until they are either caught in the act, get clumsy and make mistakes, or come to police attention in some other way.
Jack may or may not have been questioned or suspected by the police at some point. But if he wasn't, they would have had practically no chance of ever identifying him once the killing stopped for whatever reason.
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 502
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 5:19 am: | |
Hi all
It's also possible, isn't it, that he was in fact detected - by some relative who may have warned him that if it happened again, he'd be handed over to the police. He may have noted this warning, especially after the offer of a pardon. It's also possible that he may have changed his style after the Kelly murder, in order to deceive the relative.
Robert |
Glenn A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 7:42 am: | |
Hi everybody.
(Thanks for the compliment on the english, Neale. I needed that.) 
I agree -- it would be a great thing if someone would summarize the criminal profiling arguments. I think I read some of the posts when I first entered the website as a newcomer. As erlier has been stated, criminal profiling is not an exact science and it's certainly true that our knowledge in the field are based on cleared cases and the criminals that's been captured.
BUT! I nevertheless find it psycologically problematic for a serial killer to stop his spree without being stopped by someone else or other external factors. Of course, we can't rule anything out, but I personally don't think it's possible. We are talking about people that's driven to their actions by human(?) instincts and can't control them.
Thanks for the tip on Nicaragua and the Carrie Brown murder in New york. I'll study them as soon as I get the time. Interesting. I know other murders in other geographic sites have been discussed here earlier, but I haven't got around to it yet -- this website is truly enormous and it's hard to get an over all view (or at least, it takes considerable time).
Yes I think incarceration or death is the most possible reasons for the killings to stop. However, I must clarify on the suicide point; I don't really see this as a probable factor, although I'm not sure. Mentally, one could argue that the murder in Miller's Court had made the strain from his instincts som unbearable that he either had to progress in his violence even further to "top" it (in order to gain the necessary pleasure) or to kill himself to end his mental suffering.
For what it's worth, let's take a look at Macnaughten's notes: I quote:
"A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his waful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately commiitted suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations that he was by them confined in some asylum."
(Fido 1987, p. 146)
Now, the suicide theory contradict most profiling experiences and it's probably not the most likely outcome in the JTR case. But as being said here, criminal profiling has its elements of uncertainty and is a fairly new "science".
I'll get back later to the various factors applied to some of the suspect. An interesting list, Neale. Thank you. I'll comment later.
------------------------
Caz and Robert!
Your views are most interesting and you're quite right, Caz, but we can't be sure if he ever was identified at all by the police or anyone else. The only thing we probably can conclude is that the killings stopped, therefore we can't rule out the possibility that he died of "natural causes", even though my personal view is that he was taken to an asylum (being identified as the Ripper or not).
I think Robert is pointing out an interesting possibilty, that he was in fact detected. Martin Fido (whose theories I agree mostly with) states in The Crimes, Detection & Death of Jack the Ripper (1987) that he was known to the police and to the nearest people in the enviroment, but noone would testify against him. Instead he was incarcerated. However, Robert, I find it most unlikely that he continued and changed his methods. This is highly unusual for a serial killer, unless we're talkning about smaller variations.
All the best, people.
Glenn L Andersson |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 4:36 pm: | |
Neal suggested....
"An initial list of reasons for non-detection in the 19th century would be:
- sheer luck
- incompetance of police/authorities
- conspiracy by police/authorities
- brilliant and precise planning and execution (or capability thereof)"
The 19th century was not much different than the 12th century, or going back further, even compared with Roman times.
What is different is the age which we are living in. Today is the age of communication and, in my opinion, 'that' is making a major different to crime detection.
Today of course we have forensics and DNA and such, but, for centuries for the criminal classes, if you were not actually found in the committal of a crime the chances were pretty good you would rarely be found out.
The point is not that 'in the 19th century it was different', the point is that 'only today there is a difference'. Its a change in perspective.
So, to lay blame on the authorities for 'incompetance' is not justifiable. To them, and to the ordinary public, the 19th century was just as bad as the 16th, 12th or even as bad as described in the Bible. In fact very little had changed in thousands of years.
One very informative book by Don Rumbelow is 'I Spy Blue'. The book tells how society established 'law enforcement' in London and eventually we end up with the City of London Police.
But, back to your point(s).
1 - "sheer luck".
For sure, in fact this was the established norm world-wide. It was absolutely 'sheer luck' for the most part when criminals got away with their crimes and the same 'sheer luck' was evident when a criminal was caught. But, this was not due to anyones fault, it was 'normal proceedure', thats just the way things were.
2 - 'incompetance'.
No, I am sure you are aware of modern criminal investigations where things go wrong. Check out a few cases, missed evidence, asking the wrong questions, jumping to wrong conclusions, you name it and (I bet) even the best investigations have their 'bloopers' file. Modern detectives still make mistakes but we should not so easily throw 'incompetance' at them.
In fact, in 1888, the police as a group worked very hard on the Whitechapel murder case. Yes, mistakes were made by individuals but overall the police were thorough and committed to this investigation and used some 'unique' means to try bring this culprit to justice.
3 - 'conspiracy'.
Not by a long shot. Too many police were involved for a cover-up to be effective. I'm not sure how authorities could have covered up for the killer without leaving traces. These 'conspirators' get far too much credit for being superintelligent.
The real world just is not like hollywood, things always go wrong.
4 - 'brilliant'.
Well, we must be careful not to get things out of proportion here. How brilliant do you need to be to find & kill a few old, drunk, prostitutes at night in a slum area?.
Now, if you are talking about an undiscovered assassination attempt on Queen Victoria by a sleuth who crept into Buck House and slit her throat, well yes, quite possibly he might have to have a degree of brilliance to have remained undetected and never discovered.
Jack the Ripper did not need to be brilliant, in fact it may not even be correct to say "he was never seen". Quite possibly he was seen, its just simply a combination of witnesses who either prefer to not get involved, never put 2+2 together, were not paying attention or were too frightened to come forward.
Jack was no supersleuth, he was lucky, apparently had some experience in what he was doing and had the ability to coax a woman into feeling comfortable with him. But no need for brilliance.
Well, anyway, those are just a few of my thoughts on the matter. Take a knife to them as you see fit 
Best Regards, Jon
|
Glenn A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 6:22 pm: | |
I must agree on most of Jon's comments on the four points.
I've always found it hard to see Jack the Ripper as a cunning and clever killer. I see him merely as a confused, insane murderer, filled with rage and only responding to his instincts. The only "brilliance" about him should be that he escaped from the police, but -- as Jon suggests -- there is a strong possibility that he was seen and that noone wanted to be involved (or that some individuals wanted to protect him).
I think his greatest asset was that he knew the area extremely well and also were familiar with how the prostitutes operated (where and when) -- otherwise I think he was lucky. I suspect it would be false to give him more credit than that.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
crime historian, Sweden.
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 9:56 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
"We are talking about people that's driven to their actions by human(?) instincts and can't control them."
Are we? Simply because a person does something a normal person finds abhorrent doesn't necessarily mean that person is out of control. And while it may indeed be true in the majority of cases, I'm not so sure it can be applied to all cases, particularly if the killer is of the "cold calculating sociopath" typology. (Although I must admit, I find it difficult to find an example of even one of those who wasn't "out of control" to some extent. Even Ted Bundy, who epitomizes that typology, could fairly be described as out of control)
But as Neale Carter points out above, we can only go by the ones who have been caught. And the thing is, if a serial killer randomly killing strangers DID suddenly stop, the chances are great that he would never be caught. And there's the rub. But there are of course a number of examples of killers who haven't been caught -- the Zodiac Killer being a perfect example -- and the same question can be addressed to them as well. Did the Zodiac Killer decide to stop killing at some point? Personally, I find that to be entirely plausible.
And then of course, there's the unique case of Edmund Kemper, who indeed was out of control, but was responsible enough to turn himself in, in order to stop his own killing spree! I realize that doesn't quite support my argument, but it does indicate something regarding the variety of psychologies that can be involved in such activities as mass murder.
|
Glenn A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 12:26 pm: | |
Just want to apologize on the terrible and sloppy spelling in my last entry. I was in an awful hurry and my fingers seemed to have a life of their own. Sorry everyone.
Glenn L Andersson |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 84
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 6:25 pm: | |
Evening All,
I have found this thread most enjoyable because of the sensible contributions being made.
I agree with almost everything so far said.
But two questions arise in my mind, which, I hope, will not distract from the main thrust, but hopefully enlighten us further.
One:Do people think Jack The Ripper premeditated these awful crimes?
Two: Do people think, unlike other serial killers, the Ripper did NOT want to be caught?
I agree that little blame for police incompetance can be laid; rather a multitude of factors as outlined by previous posters. |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 106
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
Hi John
My own personel opinion is that he wanted to be caught. I base that mainly on Mary Ann Nichols murder and where she was found. I think he took her to that spot as I can't believe she would take a customer to an open road like Bucks Row, when there were any number of quiet alleys close by. If that was the case then I would suggest that the murders were premeditated. Looking at all the murder sites, there was a good chance of being discovered: George Yard, public staircase. Hanbury Street, house occupied by a lot of people. Mitre Square, nightwatchman, regular police patrols to at least two of its entrances and it had an echo on it. As for Millers Court, I have a couple of ideas about that. And I don't believe Elizabeth Stride was a Ripper victim.
As for the police investigation I think they did a very good job considering the circumstances they were working under. I think whoever did these murders lived in the middle of the police search area (which took place early October)and may have frightened him enough to keep his head down for a while.
Rob |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 7:19 pm: | |
Hi Robert.
Being one who believes Nichols was the first of the series I tend to think Nichols was murdered en-route. Not that she led him there, or that he led her there either. Although Bucks Row was narrow and more secluded than many similar streets, the murder spot never struck me as a place to conduct 'business'.
I just think the killer was waiting for his chance as they walked together, and when all was quiet, he struck. He broke off his attack when he heard the footsteps of Cross coming down the street. I suppose he learned a lesson, as his next victim was in a more secluded spot.
I do believe the victims led Jack to their place of business rather than him taking them there.
Just opinions, thats all.
regards, Jon |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 107
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 4:08 am: | |
Hi Jon
I understand what you are saying about Nichols. What I am asking myself is, where would she taking him? I am assuming she entered Bucks Row from either Bakers Row, Thomas Street, Court Street or possibly Woods Buildings. In which case she would be walking eastwards on the southside of Bucks Row towards Brady Street, and there is nothing in that direction for them to conduct business. Of course since it was just over an hour between when she was last seen alive and when she was found, it is possible she entered Bucks Row from Brady Street. I can't explain why I feel he took her to that spot (I'd be laughed of the boards), but if we knew her movements abit better that last hour I could be more certain.
All the best
Rob |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 516
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 8:01 am: | |
Hi all
IF Long did indeed see Chapman with her killer, then the words "Will you?" seem to suggest that negotiations were taking place outside Number 29 - which seems to suggest that they had just met there, rather than that she had led him there, or vice versa, for in that case wouldn't the whole thing have already been agreed upon?
Caz once suggested that maybe the Ripper watched all or some of his victims beforehand, in order to see if they had a pimp. I wonder whether this is what happened here, with the Ripper approaching her after she'd dealt with a previous customer (the activity overheard by Cadosch?)
Robert |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 2:50 pm: | |
Hi Robert.
Do you recall there was a 'door' in that gate at the spot where her body was found.
The yard inside the gate would have been ideal?
Maybe?
(Hmm, can't recall if it was found to be locked or not)
Regards, Jon |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 108
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 6:15 pm: | |
Hi Jon
Now that you mention it, I do remember there was a door in the gate. I can't find any reference as to whether it was locked or not. I'm sure I read somewhere it was called Browns Stable yard. I've checked the police reports in the 'Ultimate Sourcebook' and there is no mention whether it was included in the search. My guess is, at that time of night it would be locked, but who knows.
Hi Robert
Interesting point. If true Annie Chapman would possibly have been waiting outside number 29 waiting for a customer, in which case it would have been her that led him into the backyard.
regards
Rob |
Neale Carter
Police Constable
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 10
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 12:49 am: | |
Hi All,
Some responses to the excellent and thoughtful posts above:
Caz - Your point is most valid. My point is not aimed at why he wasn't identified by the police but why he apparently stopped butchering Whitechapel prostitutes.
Robert - an excellent point I hadn't considered re. a "warning off" by police or a relative. This could be a reason for voluntary cessation. Is it likely he continued murdering using a different MO; this would totally redirect ideas about motive for the canonical five.
Jon - you must concede that, with all other factors being equal, some luck was required especially with the escalating attention by police and alarm by the public. All that was required was for someone to walk out into one of yards or squares at the wrong moment (surely possible in the densely packed Whitechapel) or respond to the cries of "murder". These were hugely risky enterprises - did he do anything to mitigate the risk? Was Kelly done indoors because of this?
You're also quite right about the police investigation - incompetence is too strong a term. But the plain fact is they didn't catch him. In order for us to attempt identify JtR now we must explain this. If a proposed suspect was uncatchable by normal, diligent police methods at the time then this needs to argued with appropriate evidence. One's view as to a suspect does influence whether you believe he was catchable however- if you consider him to be a disorganised psycopath with no regard to his being caught then why wasn't he. A theory proposing a controlled "risk mitigater" requires different assumptions about the investigation.
JtR may not have had to be brilliant to get away with these murders but was he cunning, ie. can we get some clue about him by asking did he do anything to mitigate the obvious risks assocaited with his MO.
John Ruffels questions are excellent - did he have a plan and did he not want to be caught. Answers to these may elimate several suspects.
Amended list of reasons no one was tried for Whitechapel murders.
1. Such a killer was virtually uncatchable by police methods at the time
2. Some incompetence by police
3. Conspiracy by police and/or government
4. Police knew identity but lacked evidence
5. Risk mitigation by killer in planning and executing murders
6. Luck
Reasons he stopped killing (linked to above reasons but not inextricably):
1. Incarcerated - prison
2. Incarcerated - asylum
3. Incarcerated - other institution
4. Died
5. Voluntarily ceased
- warned off by relative/police
- psychological condition improved (treatment
or spontaneous)
- motive no longer in place
- risk became more than reward
- other
6. Geography (no longer in Whitechapel)
- employment, eg. sailor
- moved away for other reason
- did not live in Whitechapel and prevented
from returning
Please add any I have missed. Perhaps when we have an agreed list we can line them up in a matrix with some suspects.
Neale
|
Neale Carter
Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 11
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 12:53 am: | |
Added no. 7.
Amended list of reasons no one was tried for Whitechapel murders.
1. Such a killer was virtually uncatchable by police methods at the time
2. Some incompetence by police
3. Conspiracy by police and/or government
4. Police knew identity but lacked evidence
5. Risk mitigation by killer in planning and executing murders
6. Luck
7. Continued killing undetected (changed MO?)
Reasons he stopped killing (linked to above reasons but not inextricably):
1. Incarcerated - prison
2. Incarcerated - asylum
3. Incarcerated - other institution
4. Died
5. Voluntarily ceased
- warned off by relative/police
- psychological condition improved (treatment
or spontaneous)
- motive no longer in place
- risk became more than reward
- other
6. Geography (no longer in Whitechapel)
- employment, eg. sailor
- moved away for other reason
- did not live in Whitechapel and prevented
from returning
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 197
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
Hi Neale
Re: The reasons no-one was charged with the crimes:
1. The police, both in JTR's time and today, are in a bind when confronted by a stranger to stranger killing. This is what would appear to be the motiveless crime. Those experts who study these crimes know that there is a motive. It is just very hard to understand. The killer is killing to satisfy an urge to control and dominate his victim and carry out his fantasies. I don't pretend to fully understand this type of motivation because it is very hard to comprehend by a normal mind. People need to see a rational motive for murder, for example, profit and material gain, lust, revenge, etc.
Killing for the sake of enjoyment and personal satisfaction is simply an alien concept to our way of thinking and thank God for that.
These killers are caught when they make a mistake and slip up in some fashion. The Son Of Sam killer was caught when the police ticketed his car for parking in a no-parking zone while he was off attempting to murder young couples
parked in a lovers lane.
2.I can't add much to the subject of police incompetence that hasn't already been covered.
The police did mishandle evidence.
I don't know that it was police incompetence that caused them to let so called "respectable" (read normal) appearing people go, while they looked for a person who showed signs of lunacy when questioned. They were looking for the wrong type and profile of killer. They had little or no previous experience to go by.
3. Conspiracy. I don't buy this for the reason that it seems to be beyond the ability of most criminals to engage in a conspiracy and have no-one divulge it.
4. This is the Sir Robert Anderson argument. We had the killer but let him get away with murder and go on to become the greatest historical murderer of all time and thereby make ourselves look like blunderers. Furthrmore, we had an eyewitness positively identify him but we let the eyewitness go without charging him with obstruction of justice or some other charge which would have required him to testify.
If they had their killer they would have found a way to detain him until they gathered enough evidence to charge him. They would also have made the identity public for the sake of their own reputations.
5. and 6. I'll lump these two together because I believe the killer was not organized enough to engage in anything but the most elementary risk mitigation factors. For example, knowing all the passages and police beats as well as killing in an area where he was comfortable and confident of his ability to get back quickly to his lodgings. As far as luck goes, I think the killer was cunning, street smart and lucky- but far from brilliant.
7. I believe the killer may have killed again unless something prevented him from doing so and his signature would have continued to evolve over time. He may have gone abroad, at least for awhile.
All The best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 522
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 9:21 am: | |
Hi Neale
There is another possibility, which is Caz's suggestion that the killer may have become physically sick and frail - this might have happened without his being incarcerated. It's even possible that he may have been too sick to kill for the first half of '89. then regained enough strength for the comparatively feeble attack on McKenzie, then relapsed into his illness again.
Extreme physical weakness or discomfort can put normal men off sex, so I don't see why the killer
couldn't have been affected in the same way, whether his motivations were sexual or something else.
I don't necessarily believe all this myself, I only mention it because it's a possibility.
Robert
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 3:29 am: | |
The police at the time simply did not know what to look for. Many of them assumed someone had to be obviously crazy or some deranged half-breed foreigner type. Even these days, police often question and release serial killers because they just seem too rational.
Assuming killers can't stop is problematic because we know in some cases that they do delay for a long time -- and depending how long they go, it's the same as stopping.
Beyond that, assuming MJK was the last is also very risky, as some of the later London knife killings could have been Jack, or the boy Scott Medine looked up, or Brown in the United States, or even Kitty Ronan right upstairs from MJK all those years later.
I see a lot of people making all sorts of assumptions that just don't make sense after some reading on how known serial killers have operated. I suggest anyone who is making decisions based upon "but serial killers don't do that" go read up on about 50 different cases and see if they want to change their minds.
Try http://www.crimelibrary.com/serialkillers.htm for starters. Changing methods, different targets, delays, killers in their 50s+, it's all there. Chikatilo alone crushes most of the common assumptions I see thrown around here. |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 5:11 am: | |
>5. Voluntarily ceased...
- risk became more than reward
This is my personal favorite (as far as the possibility of a voluntary cessation goes) since it seems pretty obvious to me that if he had continued, he would almost certainly have been caught eventually. Or possibly combining this with "6. Geography (no longer in Whitechapel" one might end up with:
5.5. Voluntarily left Whitechapel; (possibly continued killing elsewhere)
- risk became more than reward
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 10:15 am: | |
I am a special education teacher. I work with kids who are very young, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year olds. Many of them have been labelled retarded. Yet quite a number of them have learned to misbehave when nobody is looking. They have perfected the art of checking the adults around them to make sure the focus of attention is elsewhere and then acting. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
