|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 74
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 6:49 am: |       |
Hi Glenn,
Indeed, there are many possible interpretations. However, if we look at all the information, we can probably rank the possibilities a bit.
For example, it's possible Jack takes the knife because he's planning to kill. That might suggest some organisation. However, the other aspects of the crimes seem to suggest a lack of planning.
Putting that all together, we can probably try and narrow down likely suspects as those who either 1) carry knives as part of their profession or 2) Jack is a disorganised type who gets "compulsions" to kill, so here we're dealing with some sort of schizophrenic probably.
I think we can rule out the Ted Bundy type. The highly organised killer, I mean. Anyway, none of these kinds of things are ever intended as "this becomes fact", only a suggested "weighting" of the probabilities. There are a few ways to interpret the evidence, but even a few ways is better than an infinite number of possibilities. We might get somewhere by looking at these kind of things, and we might not. All I know for sure is that if one never looks, one can never see.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 278
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 7:33 am: | |
Hi again, Jeff.
Once again, you talk like a book of wisdom. There really is nothing beyond the above that I can contribute; you've put it well enough, and I think you're reasoning is very sound.
Yes, of course we can rank the different possibilities in less or more probable bundles; that is why I have my opinions and others have theirs nevertheless. One just have to remember, that when dealing with criminal profiling nothing is certain or crystal clear in a scientific sense; although I believe in this tool as a whole and support its basic theories, I also realize that is a method based on generalisations and subjective analysis.
No, the Ted Bundy type -- that is, the manipulative and charming psycopath -- was the first one I started to question and challenge when I first started to study the case as well. So naturally I go for point 2).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 76
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 5:21 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
There's probably a few more types that could be added to the above list as well. Of course, if we look at my list critically, it's not really narrowed things down since it includes anyone who could be argued to normally carry a knife, plus anyone who could be argued to be crazy. Given the number of butchers, slaughtermen, fish cleaners, shoe makers, tailors, barbers, and lunatics that were in Whitechapple, well, who have I really left out? ha!
Still, that's not the point. Ted Bundy types are hugely unlikely and some suspects, in order to suggest they are the Ripper, one has to suggest they are "Bundy like". I would think that works against them as suspects.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 282
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 7:35 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
Yes, I think one must consider the possibilities of mixture types in some ways; as I said, the "types" we discuss here are mainly generalizations, but sometimes these are necessary, of course. The main characteristics of the two types presented here are the most practical ones to concentrate on, I think -- then we must expect individual features, which are hard to define since we have so little information. As you indicate, defining a certain trade is problematic, as there certainly are quite a few to choose from as far as knives are concerned.
The fact that some the suspects would point at an intelligent psycopath also are one of the reasons why I tend to exclude certain characters on the list -- Sickert is such an example.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 77
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 4:18 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I agree. The most utility is derived from this kind of thinking is not so much deciding who the Ripper was but rather, who is an unlikely Ripper. If a suspect is presented as a "possible Ripper" because they could have been a "highly manipulative, intellegent, psychopath", like Ted Bundy, for example, then I think the crime scene works against that suspect. These crime scenes don't show the careful planning that such criminals do. As such, the orginal idea that Suspect X is the Ripper and these kinds of psychopaths are hard to identify are following a trail of logic that the crime scene suggests is unwarrented.
None of this is "proof", of course, but it does affect the likelihood of the reasoning being correct. It suggests that we might be better off spending more time researching other possible suspects. Of course, even pigeons know to occaisonally peck at the low probability key sometimes. It does sometimes pay out, after all. However, one is better off spending most of their time pecking higher probability keys.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 302
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 12:05 am: | |
Well said, mate.
The thing that surprises me the most is the suspect rating scale over most "popular" suspects on this site. I have no idea why James Maybrick lay as Nr 1, but it could a result of the latest book on the diary subject. But what I can't understand is why the Royal Conspiracy come on second place!!!! Why???? Who buys this fake fairy-tale today? I don't get it!
Likewise George Chapman on nr 3; the fact that he poisoned his wives doesn't make him the Ripper at all -- it is a totally different kind of crime psycologically. I might buy it if he started out as a poisoner, but to go from extensive mutilation (most probably escalating in its force) to poisoning, which is a more sophisticated, cowardly and less "dirty" killing method, is completely unlikely behaviour.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 82
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 9:59 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Didn't see this for a while. I think the "rating scale" results reflect what suspect is presented in the most "current" book. Or, perhaps more accurately, the scale reflects how well known a theory is more than "how well the theory fits the known data". 99% of the votes are going to come from people who have found this site based upon reading a book, or seeing a movie, etc. So, they vote the suspect they know - the one that brought them here in the first place. If they stick around, read various threads, they will find that perhaps the answers are not quite so clear as they originally were led to believe.
And I agree that it's unlikely that someone who quickly silences and murders strangers who are prostitutes, and goes on to mutilate them, is later going to switch to slowly poisoning women with whom he's in a personal relationship. Almost every aspect of these murders, from victim type, victim/killer relationship, method of killing, length of time required to committ the kill, etc. are almost diametrically opposite. One could hardly find two series of murders with less in common between the series and yet within each series there are huge similarities between the individual crimes. I might buy it if there were at least some commonalities between the two series, suggesting a transition from one to the other, or if at least some poisonings were happening at the same time as the Ripper murders (suggesting he might have experimented with different techniques), but I'm hard pressed to find anything like this. Simply because Chapman also killed multiple victims doesn't mean he's a good suspect for the Ripper murders. It's like saying someone who is a good cricket player is a good candidate for playing chess simply because both take a long time to play and both are boring to watch if you don't know what's going on(ok, maybe not quite that extreme! ha!)
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 321
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 6:25 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
Couldn't agree with you more.
Regarding the suspect rating scale, I think you have a point that could explain it; as far as the Royal Conspiracy theory is concerned, it comes to life everytime a new film on the Ripper theme is done, so maybe it's the effect of From Hell we see here (especially as several years has passed since the arrival and actuality of Knight's book). Chapman could be a result from those who've read Sugden's book -- although he only presents him, not stresses him to be a favourite suspect. Maybrick could be a result of the diary and the books produced on the subject.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 87
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 1:03 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
I suspect that whenever a new book, movie, or whatever, comes out and stirrs up interest in the Jack the Ripper murders, new people will find this site and cast their vote. Even if the new "media" item is not about one of the generally well known suspects (say, the Royals), some of the people who come will vote for that one because they know that theory and haven't actually seen/read the movie/book. Personally, I've not yet seen "From Hell", but will do one day just for entertainment. I like Depp as an actor, I suspect I'll like the film as a distraction, and I suspect I'll regard the "plot" as anything but history.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 325
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 6:30 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
What!! Haven't you seen "From Hell" yet? Well, I wish I could tell you that you are in for a treat, but if you've read my posts on the subject you probably know what I think about it. Depp is a splendid actor, though, and he has an incredible screen charisma, although the picture that's been given of Abberline in the film leaves more to be desired. I also think the indoor and outdoor settings in the films are great; East End is portrayed with strong historical crediblilty. The plot is complete bogus, though. The manuscript is one of the worst I've seen in years. And naturally there are a lot of factual errors, but that is just something that has to be reckoned with.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 7:55 am: | |
I much preferred our Johnny's performance in The Fast Show.
Ooh, suit you sir!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 328
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 8:25 am: | |
Haven't seen that one, Caz.
Not the much into films anyway -- I prefer books, to tell the truth.
All the best
Glenn L 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