|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Petra Zaagman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:45 am: |       |
Hi people! I'm Petra from the Netherlands.
I'm interested in the Ripper case, and I read this page very closely.
I've got a few suggestions about the identity and motives of the killer.
You must know, I think he was just one man commiting the murders.
I believe the Ripper had medical knowledge. I mean, some of the victims had organs removed. These organs weren't easy to take out, because other organs were lying in front of them. These organs weren't cut away.
He might have been a doctor or a vet (?)
I would very much appreciate it to hear your opinion about this possibility. I know some doctors were suspected, but were there any vets on the seemingly endless list?
(Did the profession of a vet already exist?? )
If he was, then it's more likely to me that he lived in West End, not in East. In the map we can see that the five murders of Nichols, Stride, Eddowes, chapman and Kelly took place relatively close to the big road.
How do you think about this?
I read some pages about serial killers, and it appears to me that most lust killers aren't like the Ripper. A lot of sexual killers raped their victims. I read Jack didn't do that.
To me, it seems he wasn't some kind of lunatic running around with a knife in his left hand.
He might have had a motive for his killings.
It is said that he might have hated his mother.
Why do you always think about hate as being a motive?
It isn't hate we should look for, but love.
Maybe his father had to do with prostitutes. If his mother noticed, she must have been very sad.
Maybe Jack felt his mother's pain?
Maybe this made him kill those prostitutes.
How do you feel about this?
Please tell me your opinion?
Much Wisdom,
Petra |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 242
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 10:39 am: | |
Hi Petra,
Welcome to the board and thank you for your views.
As for medical knowledge, I'm not quite so sure. It is true that some organs, which are quite difficult to find, were taken out. But some were also crudely cut. I'm not a medical expert, but the mutilations doesn't really imply to me that he necessarily had to be a doctor. Of course, the conditions on the murder scenes were harsh, but if he were a doctor he would most probably be well edjucated and would also want to "show off" his work in a more prominent way. The mutilations give, in my opinion, a too sloppy and random impression to convince me about this.
But the I would add, that he very well could have had anatomical knowledge! And for that he didn't have to be a doctor; he could have been working at a mourtary, on a hospital or he could have been a slaughterer. At least, I would say, that he would have (or used to have) a profession where he was used to working with the knife. Serial kilers display in most cases a general curiousity for the human -- and especially female -- body; that doesn't mean they have to be doctors. We can't rule out anything here, but I think the doctor trail is a remain from old Ripper mythology; it may be more romantic but I am not so sure.
About serial killers, the Ripper murders could very well have sexual backgrounds, but I agree that he most probably wasn't a lust murderer in the general sense. There are, roughly speaking, three kinds of serial killers:
-- the psycopath
-- the disorganized "lunatic" (mostly paranoid schizofrenics)
-- a mixture between the two mentioned above
Now, all these have in most cases a disturbing background with low self-esteem, a problematic sexuality, a dominant mother etc.
But then they differ from one another.
A psycopath plans his crimes, he changes his "working area" and moves around, he is an exhibitionist and sees his deeds as an art he wants to brag about. He mostly takes his times with the victims and often rapes them or have sex with them; he also like to get to know them (as a part of his way to control them), is manipulative and also in many cases tortures them (sometomes for several day).
The "raving lunatic" or the disorganized killer have no interest in getting to know or have sex his victims, he just wants to destroy them because he hates what they represent. He works fast and silence them as quickly as he can so that they don't yell or are able to resist (as due to his lack of self-esteem and his incapability of normal social contact). He may leave the bodies displayed in the open so that everyone can get the "message" and he is in no condition to get rid of the bodies in an intelligent way. This kind of killer is not that intelligent and work more randomly, without planning and merely on instinct.
I for my part, in contrast to you, believe that the Ripper belong to this second category -- yes, the "raving lunatic". There are no signs of sexual activity in connection with the victims, the killings and mutilations look more "sick" than organized and the victims were silenced (by strangling or throat-cutting) and the killings done very quickly. There are no indications on a cunning, intelligent killer, in my view. The only reasons to trigger him into killing seem to be rage and hatred (and that is not really a motive). And this kind of killer doesen't have to be sick or disorganized all the time, but certian situations could make his conditions worse and trigger him into killing. He could also be a mixture of these too types, but that is more unusual.
We must also remember that many serial killers or violent offenders also have a brain damage in the area controlling emotions, temper, sexuality and empathy. They may have experiences in their background that makes them kill, but it takes more to it that or else everybody with a prostitute mother and abscent father would be killers. That is not the case. He would also have some sort of disorder.
I do believe Jack the Ripper was an East End resident, living in Whitechapel or Spitalfields. A serial killer of this kind mostly have his "comfort zone", most likely near his first murder. There are strong indications on that the Ripper knew Whitechapel inside out, which wouldn't be the case if he came from West End.
These are just points that I think are the most likely ones, but -- as we've said many times on this website -- things are unclear and not much really be proven or ruled out for sure.
All the best, Petra 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 143
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 5:25 pm: | |
People often tend to make a fatal assumption about the organs removed. It may be true that a kidney, for example, is hard to locate, especially in the dark. But that presupposes that the killer was looking for a kidney. It may well be that the killer just happened upon the kidney as the first organ he came across. No great skill needed.
Now the uterus may be a different story, since this was taken from more than one victim, which does tend to indicate purposeful locating.
Personally, I think the killer had at least the anatomical knowledge of a butcher or slaughterman. There is a possibity of his being a medical man, but it's not demanded by the evidence.
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 746
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 6:16 pm: | |
I feel he may have had experience of slaughtering and cutting up animals. And even if he didn't do this for a living, I fear he may have experimented on dogs, cats and rats.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 244
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 7:58 pm: | |
Hi Andy and Robert,
I agree with you both. I do believe that thing about the medical knowledge has taken the Ripper investigations far off the right track more than once, although we can't know anything for sure. And I do think you're on the right track there, Andy. Why should we automatically assume that he was looking for a kidney?
It is also quite common that serial killers have started their "career" in knives with cutting up animals as a child -- unfortunately.
All the best.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Petra Zaagman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 3:33 am: | |
Looking for a kidney-- it was dark, the streets were barely lit. People who lived in those streets often didn't hear anything unusual.
It is true that the victims were killed as soon as possible by strangling or cutting the throat.
I appreciated your comments and took a close vieuw on the case again.
I think that Jack was very responsible for his deeds at the time!
I mean, he killed his victims in streets were people lived. Anyone could have heard something suspicious. For a few times he was almost caught. (Diemschutz)
He stopped himself in time. He hid and made sure no one saw him.
He chose a knife as his weapon. A knife with a long razor blade. Imagine a madman chosing a weapon. He would choose the biggest knife he could find. He would look at how dangerous the knife looks, not at how well he could use it.
If Jack was looking for a kidney, then he knew what he wanted and he knew how to find it.
Same with the uterus.
In little details he might have planned some things.
Gentleman Jack knew what he did anyways.
What do you think of it?
Bless you,
Petra
|
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 14
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
Ha die Petra,
I'm from the Netherlands too, so an extra welcome from me to the boards!
I agree with Glenn, Andy and Robert. I don't think that Jack had any medical knowledge, but there's a good chance that he had some anatomical knowledge and I also feel that he had experience with the knife.
Especially the murder on Cahterine Eddowes to me indicates that he didn't have any medical knowledge, because Jack the Ripper only needed about 10 minutes at the most to kill & disembowel her and mutilate her face in what must have been a very dark corner of Mitre Square, whereas in the case of Annie Chapman - who was less mutilated - Dr. George Bagster Philips stated at inquest that 'he thought he himself could not have performed all the injuries under a quarter of an hour.' My idea is that the killer wasn't looking for specific organs, he just cut open the abdomen and took out and with him what felt good at the time.
I do not completely agree with Glenn on his grouping of serial killers. I prefer to classify them as follows:
- organized killers : plan & manipulate, control their victims, highly intelligent, mostly take with them a weapon when looking for a victim, mostly hide bodies
- disorganized killers: strike at random, no control, not especially intelligent, mostly use as a weapon whatever they can find on crime scene, mostly don't make efforts to hide the bodies
- mixed offenders : have some organized and some disorganized features
Before I say in what catagory I think the Ripper belongs, we must consider what Whitechapel and Spitalfields were like at the time. They were densely populated, poor and rough neighbourhoods. People who couldn't get their 'doss' money to pay for a bed had to spend the night out on the streets. Probably a lot of people were coming home late at night from work or were leaving home very early in the morning to go to work. And there were lots of police constables walking their fixed beats at night. So, in other words, also during the night there were a lot of people about out on the streets. Whitechapel and Spitalfields offered few disposal sites, if any, where a body might lay undiscovered for any length of time.
Another thing to consider is that most people in the East End didn't have means of transportation, they had to do everything on foot. Some of them had their own or seperate lodgings (like Mary Jane Kelly), but I think most of them lived in lodging houses packed with people.
Now, having said this I think the Ripper was a moderately intelligent mixed killer, who was especially intelligent in a practical sense. As I also believe Jack the Ripper lived in Whitechapel or Spitalfields, I think he knew the streets and life of the neighbourhood in which he killed inside out and used this when he was on the prowl.
I think Jack the Ripper looked nor acted like a monster, and as the women who were ultimately to become his victims probably were badly in need of money, I don't think the Ripper needed to persuade them to go with him or to lead him to the crime scenes. However, it must be considered that as more victims turned up, the women prostituting themselves must have become more cautious when accosted by a possible client.
The fact that the Ripper succeeded in killing at least four times (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly) and perhaps even as much as seven times (also Annie Millwood, Martha Tabram & Elizabeth Stride) without being caught, to me seems too much of a coincidence to think he just randomly killed. This could mean he did some pre-crime planning in the sence of choosing the locations. Another thing with Jack is that in none of the cases signs of a strugle were seen or heard. If we accept that the killer engaged in pre-crime conversation with his victims, he obviously went through them without engendering any hint of fear or suspicion in either woman. Furthermore, the Ripper must have chosen exactly the right moment to launch his attacks. So, he seemed to have total control over his victims. To me, these things are the Ripper's organized features.
On the other hand, the lack of penile penetration, the mutilations and the fact that he left his victims in plain view are characteristics of a disorganized killer, although it has to be said that regarding the displaying of the bodies, he very likely didn't have any possibilities to conseal them elsewhere.
I don't know if we can call Jack the Ripper a psychopath (a more organized kind of killer) or a paranoid schizophrenic (a more disorganized kind of killer). Whereas Glenn's more inclined to think the Ripper was the latter, I tend to think he was a psychopath, although not a highly intelligent and manipulative one. Perhaps he was one of them, perhaps not, but both are good possibilities.
As you can see, there are different ways of looking at the Ripper case, which is caused by the lack of (official) information and our personal way of thinking. The lack of info is a result of the fact that in those days the police had no experience with this kind of killer and they didn't have the tools that modern day police do have (fingerprinting, forensics, DNA-analysis). In other words, they didn't look for certain information and they couldn't get or work with certain information. Furthermore, not all the files on the case have survived, they were destroyed.
This lack of information leaves us with a great many possibilities, which on the one hand gives us room to (cautiously) speculate and discuss any part of the whole case and that is good fun, but on the other hand it sometimes frustrates because we have so few facts to build upon.
I hope you'll stick around and perhaps post some more of your theories or ask some more questions.
Groetjes,
Frank 
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 247
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 8:27 pm: | |
Hi Frank and Petra,
I should really be aslepp at this hour, since I've gao te be on my way aerly in the morning, but I couldn't resist responding to both of your posts, since I won't be back for over a week.
Nice to see you're not one of these newcomers, Petra, who just leaves a single message and then disappears.
Regarding my interpretation of Jack the Ripper's character, I must add that the basis for this is not my own inventions, it is the ground rules of criminal profiling, especially from FBI. I might also add, that this is not an exact science -- it is characterizations that are based on only known cases and should also be regarded as generalizations, of course. I prefer to use their terminology because most people in the field then knows what I am talking about.
Now, Petra, you said:
"He chose a knife as his weapon. A knife with a long razor blade. Imagine a madman chosing a weapon. He would choose the biggest knife he could find. He would look at how dangerous the knife looks, not at how well he could use it."
Actually, knives are not a problem here. A disorganized killer is a nervous, unsure killer, so in most cases they actually carry knives, for their own protection. This is quite common. And they do know how to use them. I think your interpretation of "disorganized" and "paranoid schizofrenic" means someone who is totally uncapable of taking care of themselves and not think at all, which is not the case. They are also not that sick throughout. But a knife are a typical attribut for a person of this kind.
And I never said that Jack was looking for a kidney or any other organ -- on the contrary, I am against this view. I just think he slashed away and took what he came over. So no, the murders wasn't planned -- I believe they were random killings.
Hallå Frank!
Your classification of the criminal types are correct, as I see it. No disagreement there.
But I don't agree with how you apply them on good ol' Jacky here. First, I believe we can assume -- as you say -- that jack lived in the Whitechapel or Spitalfields area. So he knew the territory. The fact that he worked in this "comfort zone" indicates more an unsure disorganized killer, while a psycopath mostly is on the move and tries to avoid detection by changing his MO:s (sometimes) and his locations.
"However, it must be considered that as more victims turned up, the women prostituting themselves must have become more cautious when accosted by a possible client."
I don't think so, Frank. There were probably a slight decrease in activity during the most critical weeks of the case, but it was only temporary. My experiences of studying prostitutes during the 19th century reveal that they in general couldn't take such considerations, and never did. They simply had no choice. It was death by starvation (or freeze to death outside) or the Ripper for them.
Actually, Frank, the fact that no signs of struggle was to been is the one of the strongest indications of a disorganized killer -- according to profiling theories. A disorganized killer with low self-esteem silences his victims as fast as he can, because he don't want them to resist. A psycopath doesen't care about this -- he likes to get to know his victims to control them and watch them suffer. I don't think he had to be a genius to lauch his attack at exactly the right time, this could just be a result of instict of self-preservation. When he though the coast was clear, he did it! So no, I don't think there were any pre-planning and no pre-conversations at any greater extent -- I don't think he was social enough. There is nothing at all indicating that he had control over his victims -- on the contrary, the fact that he murdered at high-risk situations confirms, in my view, that we're dealing with a killer that isn't planning at all and who is unsure of himself. A psycopath would do better planning, by choosing situations not that risky, and he would also most likely have sex with the victims or rape them.
Also, the fact that he got away is a detail that's been overread; he knew the area inside out -- and had some luck, plus the fact that the police of the time had little experience in crimes of this kind. just because he'd be a disorganized killer, doesen't mean that he is totally out of his mind. But he would have a hard time to control his anger and his instincts.
It is true that little can be claimed with certainty in this case, and there are many possibilities. But the crime scenes and the victims themselves (as well as how they were killed) doesn't point in the direction of an organized man, as I see it. If there is one thing in this case that I feel is quite hard to disregard, it is this circumstance.
Once again, Petra, welcome to the board and keep on posting.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 752
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 8:11 am: | |
Hi Petra
Welcome to the Boards.
Another thing to be considered when trying to assess the level of Jack's medical knowledge and skill, is that during the mutilation of Eddowes he got faecal matter on his hands, which I don't imagine he intended to do.
Robert |
Petra Zaagman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 10:17 am: | |
Hi Everybody!
About the fact that the victims apperantly trusted him: these women were in need of money. In those days, entire London was in panic. Everone walking on the streets alone was 'suspicious.' So were the Jews, and everyone with medical knowledge.
Most of the London people couldn't imagine a normal man doing this. If they had a 'vision' of Jack, they must have imagined him as an unshaven, schizofrenic lunatic. Someone who looked crazy.I think he didn't. His victims needed money. If you need money, would you follow just everyone? I think they looked quikly at their 'costumers' to see if they were the kind of people with money. I mean- how many unshaven schizofrenic lunatics are walking on the streets with lotsa money? If they thought he couldn't pay them, it would have been a waste of time, don't you?
Maybe psychopaths do choose risky situations. It's often giving them a 'kick' to commit their murders in such risky places. Adrenaline, y'know?
If I were a psychopath, I would do anything for a kick. But the first murder doesn't cool the need, so they commit their second, and every time there seem to be more risky things.
Hope you'll keep posting, because I still love to hear your comments!
Petra |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 6:36 am: | |
Glenn says that no signs of a struggle indicates a disorganized killer and an organized killer wouldn't have silenced them so quickly... I'm afraid he's got this exactly backwards.
Let's assume for a minute that Jack didn't immediately silence his victims and wanted to torture them and have them see what he was doing. All it takes is a few seconds to think about this and we all know that he would have been caught almost right away if he had tried to do this.
An organized killer doesn't do things that would get him caught so easily. A disorganized killer is a whole lot less likely to be able to think the risk through or care.
The fact that he got away with killing people on the streets in a highly densely populated area several times without people hearing is highly indicative of an extremely organized killer.
So the theory is that an organized killer would have tried to hide the bodies... Where exactly in the East End do you expect a killer to be able to do that? Again, it's highly populated, so you don't just go carrying around dead people and not get spotted. An intelligent person knows that his best chance is to flee and blend in with the crowd.
So an organized killer is more likely to travel... ok, again, where and how? He can't just hop in an automobile and drive off to some secluded village. And do you suppose an intelligent resident of the East End thinks he can go to the West End and not be spotted so he could sneak in some place he's not all that familiar with to kill someone? Just doesn't seem likely, not with all the easy targets back home. And, as far as that goes, how do we know that he *didn't* travel someplace else with easy victims? Carrie Brown was killed in a similar fashion across a big expanse of water, and similar killings are rumored to have been in ports in various other countries.
Jack the Ripper was way too organized to be a disorganized serial killer, in my mind.
Also, regarding an earlier point, lust killers don't have to have sex with their victims. The act of murder (and, in the Ripper case, the mutilations) would be a sex act in their minds. That's why they kill. If this killer were motivated by something other than his own perversions I can't imagine a scenario that would logically explain the extensive mutilations.
Dan
|
OUTSIDE looking IN
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2003 - 8:27 am: | |
Medical knowledge...food for thought.
If he had medical knowledge then he'd have accessed the kidneys from the back. Much easier to get at. When you open up a stomach, undoubtably the first thing you are confronted with is the intestines. in Eddowes case, placed over the shoulder. When taking trophy's you may rummage around looking for something smaller than twenty five meters of fleshy inner tube. Undoubtbly one of those things could quite easily...and commonly, be the kidney. A pig's kidney does not differ greatly to that of a human beings kidney. A Slaughteman could just have easily found what he required, but sadly, in so many theories it never suits the theorists needs, so a myth to the expertise required to find a kidney is applied.
The weapon of choice was not some middle to upper class surgeon's surgical knife, rather it was the lower/poor classes weapon of choice, a slaughterman's knife. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 2:06 pm: | |
The ghosting qualities of Wilson live on.
I hear him rapping on my spirit table.
‘The act of murder (and, in the Ripper’s case, the mutilations) would be a sex act in their minds. That’s why they kill.’
This is exactly the subtle signal that I have been discussing elsewhere, something so matter of fact - but at the same time so subliminal - that it is shoved into our mailbox on a daily basis and the majority accept it as bread.
So here we have a someone - a big wig on this level of the colony - who has been telling us for years that anyone who mutilates and murders a woman is driven by sexual desire… oh what was the famous line?
That the murderer was exchanging his penis for a knife.
That was it.
And what happens to that single signal transmitted by Wilson all those years ago? It is taken up by a whole cadre who now swear to it. Jack the Ripper was motivated by sexual lust, he was a ‘lust’ killer, nice and easy, he stabbed, ripped apart and brutalized women because… well, that’s sex isn’t it?
So the soldiers march out into the Colony and broadcast the news.
The news is thus:
‘Sex is not about love, sex is not about pleasure, sex is not about reproduction, sex is not fun. Sex is rape, sex is murder, sex is mutilation, sex is a knife, sex is blood, sex is killing women.’
And on they march, chanting their mantra.
And you do chant with them.
‘If this killer were motivated by something other than his own perversions I can’t imagine a scenario that would logically explain the extensive mutilations.’
Try hate.
Try life.
Even try sorrow.
But please don’t tell me that Jack was a sexual pervert.
|
Brad McGinnis
Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 33
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 2:48 pm: | |
Hey Outside, Twenty five METERS? Wow, the woman had guts!. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 10:36 pm: | |
"If this killer were motivated by something other than his own perversions I can't imagine a scenario that would logically explain the extensive mutilations."
>>How do you know they were HIS OWN perversions?
|
Neale Carter
Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 26
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 10:45 pm: | |
Dan,
The fact that he got away with killing people on the streets in a highly densely populated area several times without people hearing is highly indicative of an extremely organized killer
Your comment is extremely valid. A way through the mire of fragmentary and conflicting evidence may be to focus on the one irrefutable fact that he wasn't caught. Your speculation that this points to an organized killer can then be argued and if persuasive leads to the elimination of several suspects. It is far more difficult to forensically deduce a motive from the murders/crimescenes themselves from this distance.
Neale |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 11
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 5:00 am: | |
I believe you will find Glenn was basing his diagnosis of the Ripper as a disorganised killer on the definitions created by John Douglas, Robert Ressler and Roy Hazelwood and specified in the FBI's crime classification manual. Under those definitions the Ripper was either a disorganised or mixed type killer but certainly not an organised type. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 260
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 4:10 pm: | |
Hi Alan.
You are completely right, and I also made that perfectly clear (that's why I referred to the FBI school and stated that these opinions was not my own personal inventions). Unfortunately Dan chose to disregard from this. Even if these aren't the only sources I have for these "diagnoses".
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 261
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 5:06 pm: | |
Hi Petra,
I actually think, considering the media coverage, that most of the prostitutes or among the public in general suspected the Ripper looking like a doctor with a bag. And a person looking like that should absolutely had drawn attention to himself, unless he -- of course -- chose to disguise himself to fit in the community, which could be possible. So no, I don't think anyone expected the Ripper to be a unshaven, crazy lunatic -- and, not to be judgemental of the working class, but I think it's fair to assume that most of their regular customer looked like that anyway, so if that was the case they couldn't work at all.
You've got a splendid message thread going here, Petra. Good work!
--------------------------------------------
Dan!
I disagree with you totally! I am very well aware of the fact that there are more theories concerning criminal psychology than those that spring out of the FBI, but according to that school your conclusions are totally wrong, and I also find them problematic to my common sense about criminal behaviour as well. I'm afraid you are the one who got it totally backwards here, if you don't mind me saying so.
An organized killer -- mostly with psycopathical tendincies -- enjoys the act of killing itself as well as watching the victim struggle or suffer. That is why psycopathic killers very often tend to torture and rape their victims, a procedure that -- unfortunately for the poor victim -- can take quite a lot of time.
There are no such indications regarding the Ripper murders and no evidence of the killer's need to "bond" with or getting to know the victim on a personal level, which a psycopath like to do to gain psycological control. We have many such examples in the history of serial killing where psycopaths are involved.
In the Ripper's case we must look at the crime scenes. What do we see? We see murders done in a fast "blitz"-like manner, like they didn't know what hit them. They have been caught off guard and the deed has been done within seconds or at least a minute or two. This highly indicates a disorganized killer, who is very much unsure of himself and don't want to take the chance that the victim is going to resist. A disorganized killer is not really interested in getting to know the victim, he just hates them and wants the job to be done. However, the fact that the murders are done in high-risk situations also indicates killings made on impuls, not planning (for a psycopath planning is an essential part of the experience). I never said that the bodies in connection with the Whitechapel murders should be hidden if the murders were planned, I know that is quite a hard task to do on the city streets and that was not my point. Actually, the fact that the bodies were laid in open view could very well indicate both an organized or disorganized killer, since both categories has a need for displaying the result of their act to the public or the authorities. The point was that there is nothing on the crime scenes that indicate planning of any kind, and an organized killer would probably -- in these environments -- choose to murder indoors or on other situations; a psycopath may like to play with the law and take risks but he is not stupid and he would most certainly NOT take unnecessary risks that would lead to him getting caught. And the crime scenes display to me circumstances with extremly high risks, and not that much signs of intelligence.
Then you read more into my words than necessary. When I suggested that an organized killer travels about I meant that he would permanently change the locations for his murders to deliberately confuse the police -- this is a general approach of serial killers with organized tendensies. Once again, here we have no indications of such conduct. It really wouldn't require an automobil (sic!), but it would simply mean that he moved to another district or city. On the contrary, we see that the Ripper stays within a certain, and quite narrow "comfort zone", which also is very typical of the disorganized killer.
But then of course, you're right: we can't be sure whether the individual in question was responsible for other murders elsewhere. But I prefer to base my analysis on the supposed canonical victims (regardless of how they are four, five or six) and the pattern they show, and I find it quite unlikely that the murders done in another countries could be attributed to the Ripper. I believe they stopped with Mary Kelly and that the killer either died or was incarcerated.
You are also right that the mutilations could be part of a sexual act, of course, I have never disputed that.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 69
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 6:16 pm: | |
Hi,
Organised and disorganised classification should be thought of as a "continuum" rather than an "either - or" sort of thing. Organised killers tend to have set up plans for the whole thing, including body disposal, how to capture their victim, etc.
Jack, however, doesn't appear to have done this. The amount of planning is fairly minimal. At most he's
1) taken a knife
2) decided to pose as a customer (not proven but plausible so I'll give him this as part of his "plan")
3) worked out that strangulation would silence the victim
4) throat cutting will ensure silence after at least unconciousness
5) and this all gets him prepared for what the whole thing is about, which is the mutilations.
However, this isn't really a very good plan. There are lots of things that could go wrong, and an organised killer would worry about these things. Highly organised killers work out a way to get their victims somewhere where they can control the situation fully. No chance for the unexpected scream, or the unexpectedly strong resistance, etc. Highly organised killers are prepared for these things, Jack's plan isn't. There are lots of ways that Jack's plan could easily have gone wrong. And, with the possibility that he was forced to leave the scene with any or all of Nichols, Stride, Eddowes, and McKenzie (drop any victim you don't include as a Ripper victim I'm being broad and relaxed in my criterion here), then these are examples of how unexpected things kept happening that forced him to leave.
However, the various torso's that kept turning up reflect much more planning. The victim appears to have been killed in some private location. The body is then transported and dumped, probably at some distance away from the killer's area of residence which shows an attempt to avoid suspicion. The body has been dismembered to ease transportation and to interfere with identification, again both are plans on just how to minimise the risk of detection. This, of course, doesn't mean these murders were all the work of one organised killer. However, the killer (or killers) of these victims, took some time to organise just how to get rid of the bodies. The killing itself may have been unplanned (a domestic killing, for example), but we see by the behaviours taken that consideration was given on how to conceal the location of the murder, how to transport it without dripping blood everywhere (the Pinchin street torso was wrapped up in cloth), and how to conceal the identity of the victim. All of these steps show a high level of organisation designed to minimise risk of detection.
The level of planning that Jack shows, however, is low. His "plan", if you will, includes very little in the way of "risk control". For example, killing Annie Chapman in an enclosed backyard with no easy escape route at a time of day when people are about to get up (the sun was comming up by this point) was probably the biggest risk of all the murders. An organised killer, this early in his "career", would be highly unlikely to take such a risk.
Jack, however, is not completely without some risk management. For example, his method of attack, so long as all goes well, should reduce the risk of the victim attracting attention to the event because they should be silenced. He also appears to have monitored the approach of others and left if the risk of detection got too high. He also brought a knife with him (unless, of course, this was due to his employment and he just happened to have it at the time).
However, during the initial assault what if all does not go well? What's the contingency plan he's got worked out? Run away? Not exactly very sophisticated or really very good. It leaves a witness who may be able to identify him, it may even attract a crowd of witnesses, etc. There's not a lot of alternatives for Jack if the assault didn't go well and the victim resisted and was able to call out. Based upon the locations of the crime scenes, Annie Chapman's especially, Jack doesn't appear to have worked out any plan of escape for situations going badly. A highly organised killer works these things out, and you can tell this because they get their victim to a controlled environment. By controlled, that just means if they escape, or cry out, it won't matter. They can be re-caught and nobody will hear. Organised planning involves covering all the bases, not just working out one scenerio with no room for errors.
Jack's ability to escape detection doesn't really appear to be due to his "plan", but rather because stranger killings are exceptionally hard to solve even today. Given that the police of 1888 didn't have the experience, or the investigative tools like finger prints, DNA, computer databases of people in the area, etc, Jack's escape is due more to the time in which these crimes were committed rather than any real cleverness on his part.
Well, that's how I see it anyway, so it's probably wrong! ha!
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 265
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 6:35 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
I applaud you and agree with you completely!
The thing about criminal profiling is that it's -- like all other academical theories -- sometimes contradictive and not always water-proof. Of course there also is a possibility that the Ripper could be a mixture of the two categories (this is not that unusual) and that naturally complicates things further.
But I think what you suggested in your splendid post above really hits the nail of it and at least applies to my common sense. So no, I don't think you're wrong at all here.
One thing to remember, though, is that the knife is a characteristic item for an unsure disorganized killer to wear, since he's probably showing paranoid tendencies and therefore carries it for his own protection (then it evolves into a tool for murder), but it could also, as you say, be his daily working tool. A fast silencing of the victim also indicates a disorganized perpetrator.
Regarding the level of planning and your views upon his abilities to escape, I couldn't have said it better myself, Jeff.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 8:00 am: | |
Following on from Jeff's excellent post, it does make me wonder yet again about some of the victims not thought to be Jack's - in particular, Stride and Kelly.
A man who kills a woman he knows nearly always has a recognisable motive, and the discovery of the dead woman, when obviously the victim of foul play, is usually enough to focus attention and suspicion directly on the main men in her life, and keep it there indefinitely if there are no other clues that can be followed up. This is why killers in such circumstances have been known to go to extraordinary lengths to dispose of all traces of the murder, hoping that the victim will never be missed, or that an innocent explanation for her disappearance will be accepted. Few would risk leaving a victim where she died, to be found and linked to her killer by time, location and relationship - not even, I'd wager, at the height of the ripper scare, when, if they were incredibly fortunate, their own crime might be accepted without too much question as one more of Jack's.
But the killer who attacked complete strangers, for reasons even he may have found impossible to work out, would have had none of the above on his mind. He only had to get the hell away from the immediate area the moment he sensed danger, or when he'd had enough of ripping (whichever came sooner), and unless he had been found afterwards with something conclusively linking him to a crime scene it would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Love,
Caz |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 272
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 12:12 pm: | |
Jeff,
Excellent post mate.
Very beneficial.
Monty
 |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 70
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 11:28 pm: | |
I'm very flattered! Thank you! It's nice to see postive response especially from those whose postings I myself respect (I don't always agree with them, but respect and agreement are not the same thing).
Anyway, I know I tend to push the "caution" button a lot. As pointed out by Glenn, the carrying of a knife could represent a paranoid and disorganised killer but carrying a knife could also reflect some level of organisation (planning to kill so need a weapon). For example, bringing the murder weapon to the scene, and then taking it away, is one indication of a possible organised killer.
However, no single fact should be looked at in isolation. So although this behaviour may suggest some organisation, by itself, it's not enough. This is because, by itself, this behaviour could also be explained if the killer is disorganised; one example being described by Glenn above.
To me, the other aspects of the crimes seem to indicate enough lack of contingency planning to place Jack towards the disorganised end of the spectrum. Some aspects do suggest some planning, such as it does appear care was taken to avoid getting covered in blood spatter from the throat wound. So some thought may have been put into the method prior to committing the crime, hence some planning may have occured.
Simply being obsessed with mutilating victims is different from figuring out how to do it and not get caught. A disorganised killer might be obsessed, and think about "doing" the crime, but they are going to think about it happening in an "ideal" way; a way that fits their fantansy. An organised killer thinks about "how to do the crime successfully". Not sure if I'm being al that clear here? As a warning, I'm certainly not an expert in this, and these musings are based only upon my readings of the likes of J. Douglas and other retired profilers.
And I think Caz is spot on. With the technology available at the time, the police would have been pretty hard pressed to catch the Ripper once he had time to leave the scene. I think people fail to recognise just how hard the police did try to catch the Ripper. A house to house search that including interviewing almost everyone in the area was a huge undertaking. The collating of the reports, the time involved, the cost of doing such a thing, well, it would never be done today. It takes too much time, costs too much, and has a very low chance of success; but it was the best option they had. It didn't matter if it was unlikely to work, they did it just in case.
Anyone who questions just how small a clue the police might have followed up, no matter how small a chance it might have had of leading to the killer, usually overlooks this kind of thing that they did do. And if there was anything that even suggested a link between someone a victim knew and their murder, the police would surely have jumped at the chance to hang the rest of the crimes on that person.
And Monty. Well, how could I disagree! ha!
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 276
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 4:24 am: | |
I see I got the feared one star on my post above -- even though that one didn't really contain any statements of my own, so I assume it's personal... well, I don't care, I'm getting used to it now.
Anyway, Jeff, that won't keep my from once again complement you on your new post. And of course carrying a knife very well could be based on a decision to kill. That doesen't mean that we're not dealing with a sick or disorganized personality; some killers of this category (if we really can speak of categories in the real sense) actually has a compulsion or drive to kill certain people, but that doesen't have to indicate any thorough planning. I'm not saying the Ripper was someone hearing "voices" telling him to murder prostitutes, but I can't rule out it either. This only shows that this area of study isn't black-and-white and that there are numerous possibilities.
I agree, Jeff, that one doesen't have to agree with a person to appreciate certain messages or contributors; when I put five or four stars on a post it just doesen't have to be on basis that I agree with the content; mostly it's just as much because I like the argumentation itself.
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.
|
|
|
|
