|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 12:57 pm: |       |
Kris--Thanks. Glenn-- I dunno. I feel as though perhaps I'm sounding radical here, but I think, if anything, I'm being ultra-conservative. I only have a moment before I'm out the door, but let me say this. About the murderer, Sir Robt. Anderson wrote in 1891 (at time of the Coles murder). "As in former cases he left nothing, & carried away nothing in the nature of property, to afford a clew." In otherwords, there was no physical evidence of anyone's guilt in 1888-1890. The best witness descriptions (Lawende, Schwartz, Long, Hutchinson) are problematic. I'm seeing a lot of fog and blind alleys, but I'm not seeing much that tells me that the solution is directly in the so-called case evidence.
Further, I have at least 5 police officials who left memoirs telling me there was no evidence of any kind against anyone. From a third angle, arguably the best informed policeman on the case (Swanson), names Kosminski, presumably Aaron Kosminski, who at 106 lbs makes me wonder if he could have outpowered Stride or anyone else. Starting to sound like bad news, no? Cheers, RP
PS. I don't particularly accept your viewpoint of the East End, or the viewpoint that is given in books on the subject. The descriptions of the area we have are largely from religious reformers with a political agenda (Booth, Olivia Hill, etc). or from sensational journalists who read Zola and Flaubert. It was a Cosmipolitan area with a wide range of social strata. In fact, one of the Home Office's main concerns was that the East End murders were keeping respectable ladies & gents out of the shopping districts. But this is another discussion. |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 1:47 pm: | |
In my experience, ignorance begets ignorance. Not wisdom. Wisdom comes from knowledge and understanding.
Although we can't always know what is fact, and what isn't (Escpecially in the case of the eyewitnesses) we can make educated guesses about what is likely to be true. Can we come to any definate conclusions based on assumptions? NO, of course not. But if we're going to assume we know nothing we might as well forget the whole thing right now.
I put very little stock in witness descriptions myself, but when the person under consideration is as distinctive looking as Tumblety, (Manner of dress aside) that needs to be taken into account. Can we rule Tumblety out simply on that basis? No. Does it make him a less likely suspect that he would be were he NOT so disctinctive? I think the answer there has to be a resounding "yes".
Once we start down the road that we know nothing, ANYTHING is possible. JtR could be Queen Victoria, Lewis Carroll, and Poe's gorilla acting in concert. But I'll bet anything he wasn't.
Regards,
John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 3:08 pm: | |
Sorry, but this is not the Road to Wonderland. It's a discussion about the quality of the historic record, and what went into framing that record. For all the verbage above, all that is really being said is that Tumblety doesn't match the descriptions of Lawende, Schwartz, Long, and Hutchinson, and, on the otherhand, little old me wondering if this is really enough to disallow a peep inside John Littlechild's file folder. That is it. The grand total. Is the "case evidence" really strong enough for me to assume that the answer lies within it? Nope, sorry, I don't see it. Some don't like the fact that Tumblety was 6'; I don't like the fact that Kosminski was 106 lbs. It's a bitter pill, but we have to swallow it. RP |
Kris Law
Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 17
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 3:21 pm: | |
Poe's was an orangutan actually. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 3:24 pm: | |
A carrotty moustache! |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
R.J.
"Sorry, but this is not the Road to Wonderland. It's a discussion about the quality of the historic record, and what went into framing that record."
Oddly enough, when someone says ignorance is wisdom, Wonderland is exactly what comes to mind. (Or a fortune cookie.) I've seen plenty of ignorant postings here, and very few of them have contained the slightest germ of wisdom.
"For all the verbage above, all that is really being said is that Tumblety doesn't match the descriptions of Lawende, Schwartz, Long, and Hutchinson, and, on the otherhand, little old me wondering if this is really enough to disallow a peep inside John Littlechild's file folder."
Actually it's more than the fact that his description doesn't match those given by L, S, L, and H. The point is that someone of that distinctive appearance has a greater likelihood that SOMEONE whould have noticed such an individual in the area. People notice the unusual far more readily.
Of course it's not enough to rule him out. Nowhere did I suggest such a thing, but when looking at a suspect we need to look at the WHOLE suspect, and like it or not his appearance counts against him. And BTW I agree RE: Kosminski.
I would LOVE to get a look at Littlechild's "File folder" if it ever turns up. It would certainly help us better understand why he was looked at. But that doesn't seem too likely to turn up at this point.
I'm not going to say the historical record is in great shape because it clearly is not. There are gaps, inaccuracies, and outright lies in the information we have. I don't think that there is much in the case that we can definately say we "know", but by looking at it alltogether in context (with a big grain of salt) we can get a good picture of the crimes themselves, and how the police and society at large reacted to them.
Frankly, I do not think this is a solvable puzzle based on what we have to date. The best thing we can do in my opinion is to attempt to increase our understanding of what actually DID happen in 1888, rather than WHO did it.
Maybe for me it's simply a philosophical point, I'm just not a big fan of ignorance. There's enough of it about without espousing it as a virtue.
Kris,
Thanks for the correction! Obviously it's been WAY too long since I've read Poe. :-)
Regards,
John |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 63
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 6:47 pm: | |
Kris,
I totally agree with you. Like I had said before, what man in there right mind walk through Whitechapel looking like he's asking to be robbed or killed?
-Peter- |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 6:54 pm: | |
I certainly wouldn't expect him to dress in a particularly flamboyant fashion when "on the job" were he JtR, but does anyone seriously believe that how he dressed is in any way going to conceal his height or facial hair? I simply don't see it. Any disguise that could conceal those characteristics would almost certainly make his appearance more striking yet.
His clothes are but one detail in an extremely odd picture.
It's certainly POSSIBLE that he wouldn't have been noticed, but it's not particularly likely IMO.
Regards,
John |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 64
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:05 pm: | |
John,
His mustache was said to have been a possible fake.
He could have easily slouched down when talking with the victims. Also, he was wearing a top hat that would obviously make him look taller. Not only that, the witnesses really just took a quick glance. They didn't observe.
It wasn't like he was going through Whitechapel with a gang of dogs and jewelry hanging down his neck trying to draw attention to himself.
He seemed like an intelligent person.
-Peter-
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:21 pm: | |
Peter,
I'm not buying into the fake moustache story without some sort of evidence to back it up. The fact that in some pictures it appears to droop and in other pictures stick out like a pair of handlebars suggests (to me) a real moustache that was typically, but not always waxed.
And having worn a fake moustache in a high school play I can tell you that having something like that glued to your face is uncomfortable at best, and I cannot imagine why anyone would choose to wear a fake the majority of the time when they can simply be grown naturally.
I'm not sure how easily he could conceal his height by slouching. It's much easier to make yourself look taller than it is to make yourself appear to be shorter.
As I said before I agree that were he Jack that he would take reasonable precautions. (I.E. Leaving the dogs, uniforms, jewerly, etc at home) But I still feel that from the descriptions and illustrations of the man that it is likely he would have been seen, noticed, and most likely identified. Quick glance or no.
I do agree with you regarding his intellegence and that is another black mark against him IMO. He was certainly smart enough, and well financed enough to lure the women to a place that he rented or owned. He would have had much better options than cutting 'em up on a public street and given that he wasn't a stupid man I can't imagine that he would not have availed himself of them were he inclined to carve up women.
Regards,
John
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 66
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:32 pm: | |
John,
Have you noticed how enormous that moustache was?
Regarding the annoyance of it or not, I'm sure Tumblety would do whatever it took to get noticed out of Whitechapel. With the fake moustache, he would have convenience. If he was JTR, he could just taken it off and be out the door. Or he could have just grown his own natural one while in Whitechapel.
This is just pure speculation, but if Tumblety had slouched when he was a young teenager and had continued to do so, he would have ended up with that posture permanently and it would have been natural to him and without any trouble.
I really don't think a stupid man could have done what JTR did. Yes, it was crazy to be at risk getting caught, but there have been many intelligent serial killers and how JTR avoided detection is very striking. He sure did have quickness.
Also, somebody had mentioned this before, but it’s very odd how, on the way to America after the Ripper murders, nobody had even noticed him on the ship.
-Peter-
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:40 pm: | |
Erggg. John, where have I praised Ignorance? I have said no more in praise of that particular virtue than has already been said by Begg, Skinner, Fido, Plato, Socrates, and the author of Psalms. (Now I really am starting to sound like Saddam!) It’s a very old idea, really: "It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know." --Socrates.
(I'm not aiming this at anyone on this thread, btw., only suggesting what I meant by 'the beginning of wisdom.')
Since I do not know what Littlechild and Swanson knew, I cannot weigh the worth of their suspicions, one way or the other. The extant evidence, in my opinon, is not conclusive enough to rule out their beliefs--whatever they were. And I mean Aaron Kosminski, too. Personally, at this point, I feel obliged to give Littlechild more weight than Joseph Lawende.
I can't see where this is a particularly radical point of view, though I do understand the skepticism.
As far as I am concerned, the East End, as portrayed in Ripper books and the contemporary new reports, is a lurid exaggeration. Does anyone honestly think Dr. Llewellyn risked being attacked by a mob of ruffians every time he stepped out of his dwelling in Brick Lane? The skid row district of Whitechapel was largely confined to four square blocks around Flower & Dean: see Rev. Barnett. Simple economics should tell everyone that the area relied on outside people coming into the area: the markets in Goulston Street, Middlesex, Commercial Road, etc. I see no particular reason why a six foot tall man in an overcoat walking up Whitechapel Road should attrack attention. Why should he? As for facial hair, I find the argument somewhat absurd. The paintings in the National Portrait Gallery covering the Victorian Era give ample testimony to the fashions of the day: or look to Abberline, Lusk, Sgt. Thick, for that matter. I don’t see it as a particularly strong objection, though it is worth considering in light of the extant witness descripitons. None of this is to say that Tumblety is the Ripper, but the lack of evidence swings both ways, and I don’t find the objection particularly compelling. My hunch? I think the hangover of the "Jack the Ripper" myth is so strong that any specific individual is going to be met with extreme skepticism unless overwhelming circumstantial evidence is shown. This probably a very good thing. Cheers, RJP |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:44 pm: | |
Peter,
Yeah, I noticed the size. That's another good argument for it's being real. With it stuck out to the sides like that there wouldn't be much surface contact to hold the thing on.
And again, I still cannot imagine why he would choose to wear a fake for so many years. I just don't buy it.
"This is just pure speculation, but if Tumblety had slouched when he was a young teenager and had continued to do so, he would have ended up with that posture permanently and it would have been natural to him and without any trouble."
I really doubt that. I've had slouching/posture issues for most of my life and the actual reduction in height isn't much more than an inch or so. I would think he'd almost need to walk with his knees bent to reduce his height significantly. Additionally I seem to recall him being described as having a "military bearing" which doesn't suggest chronic slouching to me.
Personally, I think it's likely that JtR wasn't very bright, and although I can accept he might have been quite intellegent, I find it hard to believe that he was both intellegent AND had money, because that combination would have allowed a much less risky approach that would give more privacy and more time to enjoy the experience.
In regards to his not being noticed on the ship, I don't think we can read much into that as we don't have testimony from the passengers available to us. And considering that he was fleeing justice under an assumed name I would expect him to spend most of his time in his cabin. That would be the smart thing to do...
Regards,
John |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 69
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:56 pm: | |
John,
With a moustache so big it can go both ways.
Regarding the slouching-I have seen what it can do. It all depends on the person and losing about an inch is a lot. Plus, let us not forget that JTR did have a top hat.
That "military bearing" could have simply come from his confidence and his clothing and they way he had spoke.
Money and intelligence don't mix? With the money JTR had, he could have easily lured the poor prostitutes.
To me, JTR shows a lot of intelligence.
1) Lured the women
2) Mutilated them in the dark with quickness
3) Avoided detection and possibly suspicion
He knew what he was doing.
On the topic of the ship, we do have some semi-testimonial evidence-the police had asked the passengers if they had noticed him and they had said no.
-Peter-
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 9:12 pm: | |
R.J.,
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point. It was more Kris's reply that troubled me "The man who is wisest is the man who realizes he knows nothing at all."
Again, I agree we must be aware of what we do and do not know, but IMO the focus needs to be on filling in the gaps. I want MORE knowledge, not to wallow in what I don't know.
I agree 100% regarding not eliminating contemporary suspects based on what we know, because it certainly is a small subset of what was known at the time. There are very few suspects I would rule out entirely. But I still feel there is value in evaluating the evidence that IS available to us, although I certainly wish there was more.
You hit the nail right on the head in regards to how the East End has been portrayed in Ripper literature. Anyone who has a serious interest in the case would do well to get some non-JtR related source material. (Fishman, London, etc)
I think we'll have to disagree as to how noticable his facial hair and height would have been.
I'll certainly conceede that there were some major league moustaches at that time, but if you look at contemporary photos of Whitechapel and it's residents, it's not a particularly common amoungst the locals. Small moustaches, clean shaven, or fully bearded seems to be the general rule. I've got a number of books of victorian era photographs from the East end and I couldn't find any pictures of a moustache that even comes close. A moustache that large would require quite a lot of care, and is probably not going to be a widespread sort of thing amounst the denezins of Whitechapel. (Please note that this is only conjecture.)
"I think the hangover of the "Jack the Ripper" myth is so strong that any specific individual is going to be met with extreme skepticism unless overwhelming circumstantial evidence is shown. This probably a very good thing."
It's definately a good thing IMO. Although I would attribute it more to a vague record that allows almost anyone to be "put in the frame" than the myth itself.
Regards,
John |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 9:22 pm: | |
Peter,
"Plus, let us not forget that JTR did have a top hat."
*IF* true, that would only make him appear to be taller, it wouldn't conceal his height.
"To me, JTR shows a lot of intelligence.
1) Lured the women
2) Mutilated them in the dark with quickness
3) Avoided detection and possibly suspicion"
I don't see where any of those things require actual intellegence.
1) Anyone with a few coins could get the women to lead him to a dark private place for the plucking. That doesn't take intellegence or much money.
2) Again, I don't see where that requires intellegence. IMO, a smarter person with money would have managed to lure them to someplace private where he could work more slowly in the light. Simply because he managed a difficult task doesn't make him intellegent. Especially when there were better alternatives available to him.
3) Considering the reletively low number of victims, cunning or luck would serve as well as intellegence, but this is the strongest indicator that JtR might be intellegent. But again, with intellegence and money JtR could have rented his own place where he could really get to work.
Regards,
John |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 75
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 11:18 pm: | |
John,
Do you really think a non-intelligent man could accomplish all those tasks? Many people would not be able to do such things.
JTR did not want to kill women in private. In my opinion, that was not his goal. If that was his goal, yes, he would have done what you said-kill indoors.
His goal was to show people what sick mutilations he had just performed.
Do you think he didn’t enjoy seeing his name in the paper?
Do you think he didn’t enjoy the fact that his name alone would bring fear through peoples spines-especially the women?
Why else would he take such risks? It wasn't just for himself.
This is not the point, but that does seem to fit Tumblety’s character.
-Peter-
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 6:17 am: | |
Hi RJ
I agree one can go over the top when talking about the East End as a place where ghouls rush in where angels fear to tread. I imagine though that it was a bit like many uban areas today - reasonable during daylight, very dangerous at night.
PS Don't go drinking any hemlock.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 744
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 6:40 am: | |
Peter,
I am really astonished here. Do you ever read any of the discussions here on the boards? The thing about JtR:s alleged intelligence have been debated here for several months on different threads, and quite harshly as well.
No, Peter. I don't believe Jack was that intelligent. Rather, I believe he was quite a confused character. In my view there are several indications on that the murders are more sick than ingenious. The three points you drag up have been debated endlessly, so this is getting a bit too repetitious.
I think you are wrong, Peter, about the Ripper's need to be in the spot-light. The murders indicate to me, that we are not dealing with an intelligent psychopath here. We can't really know anything about his goals, but if he were that kind of person, he would have injected himself in the investigation more thoroughly.
The high risk of the murders indicates not an intelligent, fearless person but the complete opposite. A psychopath doesen't take unnecessary risks, and he plans his killings. The Ripper murders were not based on any planning, at least there are no evidence on that. The victims were randomly chosen, he killed them fast because he didn't want them to struggle, and the signature (the mutilations) are quite sloppy performed -- too sloppy to be the work of a shrewd psychopath proud of his work. And too much done in an uncontrolled frenzy. The Ripper was most likely an asocial loner who feared or hated women (maybe women of a certain kind, like prostitutes) and who simply did what he felt driven to do. I don't see any indication on a stronger motive of any kind or a strong individual. In fact, to me the Ripper is a weak person, probably with a distorted conception of reality.
1) For the thousand time: the women were prostitutes. That meant that THEY led him to secluded and dark places on their own free will. This was necessary for their occupation.
2) The fast MO performed in darkness indicates a person unsure of himself, who wants it all to be over quickly. Not someone who necessarily enjoys the situation, besides the arousing seconds during the mutilation process.
3) The escapes doesen't require the brain of a genius either. He most certainly lived in the area, and knew the alleys inside out. Then we have the inexperience of the police with these types of killers. I think he could have been quite clever at some points, but it could just as well be enough with his natural instinct of self-preservation.
"Plus, let us not forget that JTR did have a top hat."
WHAT!!!?? Where in Earth did you get that idea? Where are the indications on that the Ripper wore a top hat? I would say, that he most probably didn't. If he was a person that were able to blend in, that would indeed be a bad move, and it was also that kind of person the police -- and the residents of East End -- searched for, since the papers early on discussed a well-dressed man with a top hat and a doctor's bag. Which was probably a myth.
I really don't get your reasoning about the moustache, Peter. There IS no reason to believe that it was a fake, and such a heavy moustache need some good amount of wax to keep some sort of form -- at least the ends. I know because I use moustache wax myself, and it was widely in use by most men during the 19th century. However, the REAL question is, if Tumblety had such an appearance in London in 1888. We ca't really be sure of this, but we can't know the opposite either. To talk about that Tumblety would wear a disguise and wear a fake moustache he took off during his killing sprees, is too much ungrounded speculations. That is what is called "fit facts into theory".
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 745
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 6:53 am: | |
RJ,
I wonder if you read my reply to you at all. I think I stated quite firmly, that I DIDN'T mean that all we had to rely on was the case evidence. I totally agree with your points here -- I have myself put forwards the same views about the the case evidence a number of times -- especially when discussing with Mr. Radka. Why do you continue to go with something that I have already corrected?
But from there, the step to speculate wildly about certain suspects are quite large.
If one favour a certain suspect it is quite easy to take every detail out of proportions and make it into something it isn't and call them facts. It is not wrong to speculate and draw up scenarios, but it must be built on some sort of plausible ground.
Well, R.J. I don't agree with you regarding East End. I believe it was worse than we can ever imagine in our own minds. And to assume THIS, we have a lot of available facts, not just the ones distributed by the social radicals. I can only look at the poorer district of Copenhagen or Stockholm during the same period, and they were worse enough. For a city with the size like London, I believe the social conditions would be even less pleasant. To disregard from that, is to pass the roasted beef in order to fetch the dry sandwich.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 746
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 7:00 am: | |
An addition (after reading Robert's post):
Of course we are discussing NIGHTTIME in the East End here. I believe these districts were quite OK during the day, although they naturally showed signs of poverty.
But I believe it -- at its worst -- was hell on Earth after nightfall.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 06, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1490
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 7:56 am: | |
Hi Glenn
Yes, and I imagine that a lot of minor crime was simply ignored by the police. If a constable was constantly leaving his beat in order to march drunks to the station, his beat would not have been covered, and the really serious crooks would have had a field day.
That would have been like popping off for a sandwich and coming back to find someone's scoffed your dinner!
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 55
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 8:13 am: | |
Hey there Glenn,
I have a few of your remarks to comment on:
“We can't really know anything about his goals, but if he were that kind of person, he would have injected himself in the investigation more thoroughly.”
We can’t really know if he did inject himself in the investigation or not and how thorough it was if he did, since we don’t know who he was. Maybe he did read everything there was to know on the subject, maybe he attended every inquest, maybe he even went to the police to go talk to them and maybe tell ‘m some invented story. We simply don’t know, since Jack wasn’t caught. As the police were inexperienced with this type of killer they didn't look for these kinds of things either, I believe.
“The victims were randomly chosen, he killed them fast because he didn't want them to struggle….”
I know you will say something about self-preservation, however, one could also say Jack didn’t want his victims to struggle because this would diminish the risk of getting caught – and minimizing risks of getting buckled is not a trait of a confused, weak and fearful person with a distorted perception of reality.
“…and the signature (the mutilations) are quite sloppy performed -- too sloppy to be the work of a shrewd psychopath proud of his work. And too much done in an uncontrolled frenzy.”
If Jack really was mutilating in an uncontrolled frenzy, it would have been much more likely that he would just have thrown away whatever he took out of the abdominal cavities rather than place it like he seems to have done. By the way, you say the mutilations were done in a sloppy way, too sloppy for a shrewd psychopath - now I’m curious how the mutilations of such a psychopath would have looked like.
“The fast MO performed in darkness indicates a person unsure of himself, who wants it all to be over quickly.”
One could also say – like with the avoiding of a struggle – that the darkness was chosen to minimize the risk of getting caught.
By the way, I do agree with you Glenn about Tumblety probably not being the Ripper. As far as I know he simply doesn’t seem to fit.
All the best,
Frank
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 8:22 am: | |
Peter,
Yes I think a non-intellegent person could have done those things. It doesn't take a genius to hire a prostitute, or cut up a body.
"JTR did not want to kill women in private. In my opinion, that was not his goal. If that was his goal, yes, he would have done what you said-kill indoors. "
What about Mary Jane Kelly?
The rest of your post contains an interesting interpertation of JtR, but I don't think it's supported by the facts of the case. I don't think JtR's motivation was that of a publicity hound.
I have no idea if he read the papers or not, if he did I assume that he'd enjoy reading them. I certainly don't think he wrote to them.
There is some evidence of posing of the bodies which might indicate that he derived enjoyment from creating shocking scenes, but I believe that that is secondary to his main goal. Polly's mutilations were covered when he left, were he driven soley by the need to shock, he would have likely left her exposed.
I can't recall who said this originally, but I think that it hits the nail right on the head "JtR was a sad bastard who liked to cut up women."
Regards,
John |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:08 pm: | |
"Man is the measure of things..." (Posted By R.J. Palmer above.)
>>This is an abridgement of the famous sophistical slogan of Protagoras, as reported by Plato. His complete slogan was:
"Man is the measure of all things; of things that are, that they are; of things that are not, that they are not."
It is generally regarded as the single most anti-philosophical statement of all time. It essentially holds that truth is nothing more than a matter of how people currently talk about what they think true. Therefore, erudition becomes the central logical touchstone and personal virtue. The man who speaks best is best, and ought to be considered so by the rest of society. Mathematics is empty in and of itself, and science merely speech. Socrates attempted to disabuse his followers of the traps afforded by sophistry, not always with success.
I do not believe sophistry is a good basis for Ripperology, despite its commercial success (the Diary, Cornwell, etc.) Posters should reconsider the truth value of contributions offered by Mr. Palmer.
Saddam
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
