|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 11:15 am: |       |
I have to agree with Saddam. Posters should reconsider the 'truth value' of my statements.... and everyone else's, too. This includes Greeks who offer wooden horses. Philosophy crawled out of the dust of Odysseus, when he was regarded as a mere mythical figure. 'To strive, to seek, and not to yield' ....
Glenn--I've moved your discussion about Whitechapel to another board. RP |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 78
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 2:30 am: | |
Glenn,
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.
How do you know JTR did not inject himself more into the investigation? I think he did indeed do it by simply showing the whole Whitechapel what he had done.
I'm sorry, if the Ripper wanted to kill just for himself, he would have taken a prostitute or a woman he knew up to his room. Why would he take such absurd risks? He killed them where they would be found. He knew that a crowd would gather around, like they had practically done for every murder.
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.
No, the risk does involve cunning and daring. And the way he escaped does show intelligence. What makes you say JTR didn't plan his killings?
Where did you reach this conclusion?
Is going out with a knife searching for somebody to kill not planning?
But, those plans were a bit more complex than that.
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.
Perhaps JTR could have chosen a spot.
Prostitute: Is this a good place?"
JTR: No, how about over there? (Points to Mitre Sqaure)
Prostiture: Okay.
Not that difficult. Would you expect her to object much to this? Wouldn’t it be too risky objecting to a man?
Then we have the inexperience of the police with these types of killers
Murdering a woman in around five minutes, in the dark, between police beat times which you have no clue of, unless you have planned it, and escaping without detection does not show intelligence?
Regarding the top hat, I had misinterpreted that with all those other hats like the deerstalker hat and billycock hat. I really don't know the difference, but regardless, the Ripper was seen wearing a hat.
Glenn, how are your conclusions drawn?
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.
Where do you get this? Why does profiling make it so complex and phony?
No, how about the fact that JTR had no other option to kill the women. Anybody could figure this out- killing in the dark would be a lot easier to avoid detection. If somebody was coming, he could have easily ran without even shedding his face. And if he did shed his face, it would have been a lot better in the dark than at night.
-Peter-
(Message edited by Peter on December 07, 2003) |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 79
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 2:46 am: | |
John,
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.
If JTR was a doctor, he would show some genius or intelligence.
What about Mary Jane Kelly?
If the opportunity came up, why not do it? This time, he would have more time to perform his deed and this is just an assumption-to it more extreme so that even though it was indoors, people would still be astonished.
I don't think JtR's motivation was that of a publicity hound
It may have not been his initial or main motivation and not something that had first made him do it. His first one was maybe to indulge in his own sick pleasures, but to top that off, he knew people would be surprised and frightened-that would come as a bonus.
I agree with you on the "paper writing" factor, but was it actually JTR or was it somebody connected to him or just a random person wanting some attention?
-Peter-
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 10:20 am: | |
Peter,
"If JTR was a doctor, he would show some genius or intelligence."
Yes. *If* JTR was a doctor...
"If the opportunity came up, why not do it? This time, he would have more time to perform his deed and this is just an assumption-to it more extreme so that even though it was indoors, people would still be astonished."
The key question would be did he derive most of his pleasure from his actions, or from others fear of him? If it were the act itself, and he had money, he could have made his own opportunies.
"I agree with you on the "paper writing" factor, but was it actually JTR or was it somebody connected to him or just a random person wanting some attention?"
I don't think for a moment that the initial letters were written by anyone "connected" to Jack. They would be putting themselves in danger of the hangman's noose as an accomplice.
Personally, I tend to go with the "enterprising journalist" line of thought in reagards to the Dear Boss letter and subsequnt postcard.
Regards,
John |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 82
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 12:30 pm: | |
John,
I always fight over myself on the "doctor" theory. But right now I'm leaning towards the possibility that JTR was a doctor or someone who had knowledge of dissection of women.
I really don't think it was the act itself. If it were, don't you think he would have taken a prostitute or even someone he knew and hated up to his own room or theirs?
I don't think for a moment that the initial letters were written by anyone "connected" to Jack. They would be putting themselves in danger of the hangman's noose as an accomplice.
Wasn't JTR putting himself at risk twice as bigger and more frequently? He was at risk of getting hanged or beaten to death by a mob already by his own act, but with a simple letter-that would not have been too tough. Especially compared to what he had done so far.
-Peter-
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 12:42 pm: | |
Peter,
"I really don't think it was the act itself. If it were, don't you think he would have taken a prostitute or even someone he knew and hated up to his own room or theirs?"
If he had a private room, I assume he would have. But that's not the norm for Whitechapel though. That's why I am reluctant to assume an intellegent Jack with money.
"Wasn't JTR putting himself at risk twice as bigger and more frequently? He was at risk of getting hanged or beaten to death by a mob already by his own act, but with a simple letter-that would not have been too tough."
What I was responding to was your suggestion that someone "connected" to Jack wrote the letters. Anyone connected to him, that wrote that sort of letter in their own handwriting would then be very likely to be seen as an accomplice.
Jack would not have been daunted by the risk, but it's unlikely he would have written such letters IMO.
Regards,
John |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 747
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 8:04 am: | |
Peter,
Firstly: there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that ol' Jacky was a doctor, but he could have had anatomical knowledge. This he could have provided from a number of different -- probably former -- occupations. My belief is that he knew how to handle a knife, and that he had a strange curiousity for the human -- especially female -- body. If he were a doctor, the mutilations would have been done with more signs of skill. For the most part the ripping is simply cutting and carving. I believe a doctor would have performed the signature a bit differently. But I believe that Jack could have had some anatomical knowledge, but that doesen't necessarily have to imply that he was a doctor. He could have been a butcher, tailor, worked at a hospital etc. There are a number of different options here. But a medical doctor would perform the mutilations more neatly.
Regarding the Ripper's need to be in the spot-light. If he were that type of killer you suggest, he would most certainly write a number of mocking letters to the press and the police. The letters that are available to us have been more or less clarified as fakes or hoaxes. Just to leave the bodies in the open doesen't cut it enough for that type of killer, in my view. He would also want to take part more active in the investigation.
"Perhaps JTR could have chosen a spot.
Prostitute: Is this a good place?"
JTR: No, how about over there? (Points to Mitre Square)
Prostitute: Okay."
No, Peter. According to my own studies of prostitutes, that was not how it worked. It was all done on their terms, or else there would be no deal. I find that scenario hardly plausible; their work was risky enough as it was.
"Murdering a woman in around five minutes, in the dark, between police beat times which you have no clue of, unless you have planned it, and escaping without detection does not show intelligence?"
No, it doesen't. Not under those circumstances.
Peter, a psychopath needs to get as much enjoyment out of his deed as possible. Of course, the circumstances wouldn't allow him to "take his time" as much as he pleased, but the killings to me indicate nothing but sheer random crimes. Yes, it's true; "killing in the dark would be a lot easier to avoid detection", quite possible -- but it doesen't take an intelligent fellow to reach that conclusion. That is were the instinct of self-preseravtion comes in -- it would be natural even for those who "weren't quite right".
The fact that he carried a knife with him could just as well be for his own protection (if he was a paranoid, which I believe), and would also be natural for him, if he and an earlier occupation where knives were involved. It really doesen't have to suggest any planning at all.
I can only see that we read the crime scene evidence and signs completely different.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 426
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 11:28 am: | |
Hello All
An Interesting discussion.
I'm not sure that it takes a lot of time or intelligence to get a half drunken street-walker to lead you to a convenient place to use a blitz style of attack and murder her in rapid fashion. To then go on to rip her apart and come away with a piece of viscera would not require the skill of a doctor. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of anatomy could do the job. That would include a hunter or even a fishmonger. I know a great deal has been made of the fact that removing Kate Eddowes kidney would require some basic understanding of the position of the organ in the body. I can't see that this points to any true anatomical knowledge. Perhaps this is heretical, but I believe Jack may have gained enough experience in slaughtering his previous victims, to enable him to locate the kidney and that luck played a part in his evisceration and disembowelling of Eddowes. Note that he laid the abdominal walls entirely open and allowed himself to plunder about the viscera at will. In no event would someone who knew what he was doing have cut the fecal artey and smeared himself with excrement.
I don't believe Jack wrote a single letter to the police or the Central News Agency.This may shock Patricia Cornwell, but the type of killer who taunts the police seems to be of a more intelligent breed than Jack. This type of individual also drops clues that show knowledge of the crime which have not been reported by the press. How can a psychopath bask in the reflected glory of his crimes without proving he has information the police have withheld from the general public? The Zodiac is a good example of the type of killer who feels himself to be intelligent enough to taunt the police without providing any real indication as to his identity. This should not be taken to mean that only intelligent killers contact the police. Some do, some don't, and there do not seem to be any hard and fast rules.
As far as Tumblety is concerned, I have read numerous reports of his appearance. He has been depicted as anywhere between 5'11" at the shortest and as tall as 6'4", If we take 6'0" or 6'1" as our probable height.He would have had a difficult time in avoiding being recognized with any of the victims. His description does not coincide with the man seen by Lawende Or Shwatz, who both described men of about 5'6" with light or small moustaches.
Tumblety was about 55 years of age when the Whitechapel crimes took place and judging from the picture of him on the cover of one of his books he looked every year of his age. He also cut a rather flamboyant figure and unlike your typical serial killer lived for the chance to be noticed. He insinuated himself into such diverse situations as the Lincoln assassination of all things. As far as his moustache was concerned, he wore a very prominent thick moustache which he curled at the ends. If this moustache was false then he sported it for most of his adult life and I find it hard to believe that it could have been false.
Tumblety was gay or at the very least bi-sexual. He was arrested on November 7th, 1888 and on November 16 was charged with eight counts of gross indecency and indecent assualt with force against four men. Reading the statute he was arrested under, as it was posted by Stephen some time back, leaves no doubt that these were homosexual offenses. He would however have been at liberty during the Kelly murder as I read the terms of bail.
Do homosexuals kill women or do they favour men as their victims. '(T)he gay serial killer) chooses his victims in much the same way as the heterosexual serial killer.' In other words they are the objects of his sexual desires and fantasies. he may feel he is a failure in his subculture and seeks to dominate those individuals who have made him 'feel inadequate'or a failure with the objects of his sexual desires. (See KILLING FOR SPORT; Brown, pg 77) It seems that bi-sexual serial killers will kill both sexes.
I have to disagree with the title of this thread. I believe Tumblety was one of the least likely candidates for JTR. Having said this , however, it should take nothing away from the remarkable feat of Evans and Gainey in uncovering Tumblety as a candidate.
All The Best
Gary |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 1:53 am: | |
Glenn wrote:
"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. "
Glenn, for the umpteenth time, just because you don't believe Jack the Ripper was intelligent doesn't mean that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is only doing so because they haven't read your posts. It's rather egotistical for you to assume the only way people can disagree with you is if they don't bother to read as much as they should.
"A psychopath doesen't take unnecessary risks, and he plans his killings. "
A psychopath takes the least amount of risks he can get away with, except when his ego gets in the way. The victims were all killed in relatively secluded spots with reasonably decent avenues of escape, barring swift and organized action by more than one person spotting him and approaching without fear. Even if he were spotted in the act the surprise, the handy knife (and the will to use it), and fast running would have likely been all he needed to get away.
"The victims were randomly chosen"
Not true! Random would be a man here, a child there, a woman some other time. The victims were specifically chosen, most likely because they were weak and very vulnerable, and in a profession that allowed a strange man to go to a secluded place with them. That's not random at all.
"he killed them fast because he didn't want them to struggle,"
Which is a sign of intelligence, not delusionary thinking.
"and the signature (the mutilations) are quite sloppy performed -- too sloppy to be the work of a shrewd psychopath proud of his work."
You can't win with the people pushing to say he was a maniac. Make the mutilations too regular (as some claim) and he's "ritualistic" and supposedly insane. Claim they're sloppy and suddenly an intelligent person couldn't have made them. Neither one is a very strong argument, especially since they contradict each other.
"And too much done in an uncontrolled frenzy."
What uncontrolled frenzy? Controlling the victim so you can efficiently suffocate them and point the blood spurt away from your body and keep them quiet the whole time is an *extremely* controlled kill. Frenzy might be true with Tabram or earlier killings that may or may not be the same killer, but the canonical victims were not murdered in a mad frenzy.
"The fast MO performed in darkness indicates a person unsure of himself, who wants it all to be over quickly. "
Let me get this straight... now you are claiming that being quick about mutilations outside isn't a sign of intelligence but of insecurity? All we have to do is look at MJK to see that he certainly took his time when the conditions to do so were more suitable.
Again, I don't expect you to change your mind based upon my arguments or those of other posters here, but you really have to stop acting like your answers are the only possible answers. Yes, we read the boards. Yes, we read your posts. No, they aren't as convincing as you seem to think they are. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 10:39 pm: | |
Q. "Glenn, how are your conclusions drawn?"
A. Magno cum celeritate.
Saddam
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 429
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 4:06 pm: | |
Hello All
Far be it for me to speak for Glenn, but I don't see Glenn hastily identifying some type of moron as JTR. It seems to me he is taking the position that Jack was no genius, but he was intelligent enough to dispatch his victims quickly, avoid getting splattered with blood and taking effective steps to make sure he had a ready means of escape. This would all have had to have been done within very limited time constraints. The exception of course was Mary Kelly. As Dan points out the Kelly killing did not involve a frenzy. However, there is evidence that he continued his pattern of killing his victim swiftly and then moving on to what appears to be his objective. Namely, mutilating and exploring the corpse.
I see Jack as a psychopath and not a psychotic. I base this conclusion on the fact that Jack did not wander about the streets wantonly attacking victims indiscriminately. He chose the class and type of victim who was accessible, weak and easily subdued. If Jack's goal was control, domination and manipulation then he was astute enough to achieve his objective.
None of the aforementioned requires a brilliant mind.
My apologies if I have mischaracterized anyones opinions.
All The Best
Gary
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 748
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:51 pm: | |
Hi Gary,
We may not agree on whether Jack was a dominating psychopath or not (I think not, you do), but otherwise: thank you for your post. You have interpreted me totally correct. It's been a long time now since I scrapped my earlier conception of Jack as a "raving lunatic" -- I do believe he at some points could possibly manage to control certain situations.
But I still believe he was mentally unstable and paranoid individual, with an intelligence under average. But that doesen't mean he was a complete vegetable.
And as you say in both your posts, which I very much enjoyed, none of the aforementioned requires a brilliant mind.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 749
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 1:43 pm: | |
Well well Dan, here we go again!
"...but you really have to stop acting like your answers are the only possible answers."
Dan, I suggest that you read your own posts, then. You know what they say about glass houses...
Why can't you accept that we simply have a different interpretations of things? You are yourself constantly arguing as if your opinions are the ultimate truth, so I don't think you should accuse me of things that could describe yourself just as well.
"The victims were all killed in relatively secluded spots with reasonably decent avenues of escape, barring swift and organized action by more than one person spotting him and approaching without fear."
No, that is not my belief, Dan. To me the murder sites are quite high-risk places. They may have been dark, but they were rather populated -- take Hanbury Street as an example. Daybreak and a large number of people in the house getting out of bed and some had already started working. Anyone could at any time have stepped out in the yard, since it was frequently used. Would an intelligent psychopath use this spot and this situation? I'm only speculating, but I believe not.
He took his time with MJK (if we are to believe she was a Ripper victim -- which I do, but nevertheless...) because it happened indoors! It is my personal opinion, but there is indeed quite a simple logic to it. I don't see the problem.
"Not true! Random would be a man here, a child there, a woman some other time. The victims were specifically chosen, most likely because they were weak and very vulnerable, and in a profession that allowed a strange man to go to a secluded place with them. That's not random at all."
(Note the expression: "Not true!")
I may have been a bit unclear, but sometimes you are too fast in your obsession of arguing against me, Dan. Of course the women were picked because they belonged to a certain class or group, that were extremely vulnerable -- I have myself pushed that opinion a number of times. That is not what I meant. When I said that they were randomly chosen, I meant that they were randomly chosen as individuals (in contrast to those who say that he searched for women that he either knew personally or who had superficial likenesses, like hair colour, age etc. Of course they became victims because they were prostitutes or were interpreted as such by the offender.
Me: "he killed them fast because he didn't want them to struggle,"
Dan: Which is a sign of intelligence, not delusionary thinking.
No, Dan, I think it shows that he wanted as little resistance as possible, which to me suggests someone who isn't that sure of his own capablity. I can agree that it also could indicate rational thinking but it doesen't have to suggest intelligence or exclude the possibility of someone mentally ill.
"You can't win with the people pushing to say he was a maniac. Make the mutilations too regular (as some claim) and he's "ritualistic" and supposedly insane. Claim they're sloppy and suddenly an intelligent person couldn't have made them. Neither one is a very strong argument, especially since they contradict each other."
Well, don't mix me up with what other people say. I have always regarded the mutilations being sloppy performed. I have never claimed them to be ritualistic (which in that case would indicate a psychopath) or "regular". The marks in Eddowes' face bear some ritualistic signs, but otherwise I see a man working out of rage and obsession, and the mutilations being made by someone with a twisted mind rather by someone who had medical skills. I have always been firm in that belief and never contradicted myself in that respect.
What uncontrolled frenzy? Controlling the victim so you can efficiently suffocate them and point the blood spurt away from your body and keep them quiet the whole time is an *extremely* controlled kill. Frenzy might be true with Tabram or earlier killings that may or may not be the same killer, but the canonical victims were not murdered in a mad frenzy.
You are talking about the MO, that is, how they were killed. I refer to the mutilations, which I see as being made in a frenzy rather than a controlled act. I know there are many different opinions about this, but personally I believe the mutilations speaks for themselves.
"Let me get this straight... now you are claiming that being quick about mutilations outside isn't a sign of intelligence but of insecurity? All we have to do is look at MJK to see that he certainly took his time when the conditions to do so were more suitable."
To answer you question: yes, I believe it's a sign of insecurity. What is unclear about that?
And about MJK: exactly. But that was because "the conditions were more suitable". The more suitable conditions, the better it would be for his confidence. Since he could work in a secluded situation indoors, he didn't have that much to worry about. A perfect situation for someone unsure of himself.
I don't expect you to make me change my mind either, Dan, and vice versa. But I think it is OK to debate just the same. Or is this a contest?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 09, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 83
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:20 am: | |
Glenn,
there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that ol' Jacky was a doctor
I'm quoting Dr. Philips on Annie Chapman's murder:
"I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, (in) under a quarter of an hour."
Regarding the Ripper's need to be in the spot-light. If he were that type of killer you suggest, he would most certainly write a number of mocking letters to the press and the police. The letters that are available to us have been more or less clarified as fakes or hoaxes. Just to leave the bodies in the open doesn’t cut it enough for that type of killer, in my view. He would also want to take part more active in the investigation.
Writing the letters would be putting too much risk into the killings. He was already putting enough by killing these women.
According to my own studies of prostitutes, that was not how it worked. It was all done on their terms, or else there would be no deal. I find that scenario hardly plausible; their work was risky enough as it was.
What are these "studies" of yours? My commonsense tells me that it could have happened. You do say it was "hardly plausible." So there still was a possibility.
By planning, I had meant that the minute he left his house he knew he was going to kill someone. But what draws me more into more complex planning was his avoidance of detection.
How could he avoid those police beat times?
-Peter-
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 84
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:30 am: | |
Gary,
I'm not sure that it takes a lot of time or intelligence to get a half drunken street-walker to lead you to a convenient place to use a blitz style of attack and murder her in rapid fashion.
You are making it sound way too easy. JTR would have to get through police beat times. That would involve studying them and it's very hard for me to picture a psychopath man out of his mind doing that.
I have to disagree with the title of this thread. I believe Tumblety was one of the least likely candidates for JTR.
Do I think Tumblety's the best? No, but I don't think he was the least likely. The fact that the police followed him all the way to America does bring a bit of suspicion.
-Peter-
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 86
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:52 am: | |
John,
What I was responding to was your suggestion that someone "connected" to Jack wrote the letters. Anyone connected to him, that wrote that sort of letter in their own handwriting would then be very likely to be seen as an accomplice.
Would the police really know this? Would they have taken well-planned action? I really don't think the police took the letters that seriously which I think they should have.
How about the Zodiac killer? He wrote letters to the police and it turned it would actually help in the investigation. He warned them about a change in his M.O. which turned out to be really helpful to the officer that took it seriously.
I'm not saying JTR wrote them, I'm just saying that I wish the police took the letters a bit more serious.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 436
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 1:49 am: | |
Hi Peter
I was not suggesting that Jack was incapable of calculating roughly how much of a window he had to operate within during his killings. I believe Jack was cunning and street smart. I would expect to find him living in the general district he hunted within. This would give him a fair knowledge of the backstreets and alleys into which he could disappear.
Having said that, I remain puzzled as to why he allowed himself to be trapped in the backyard of No. 29 Hanbury Street and inside Dutfield's Yard. These were poor choices for murder sites as they afforded him no ready means of escape.
I fear that sometimes serial killers are made out to be more clever than they really are in order to cover up sloppy investigative procedures. If a serial killer remains uncaught for an extended length of time it is almost amusing to watch the police and other authorities try to save face by attributing greater and greater mental acumen to the killer. I have seen cases in which the profilers have done the same thing.
When I describe Jack as a psychopath I don't mean to imply that he was out of his mind. I believe he could think and act rationally enough to take reasonable precautions to avoid getting caught.
As far as Tumblety is concerned, I don't believe the same amount of attention would be afforded him today. His behavior would have the authorities writing him off as a vainglorious nutcase. His behavior is antithetical to that of a serial killer who, logic dictates, would avoid the glare of publicity for obvious reasons.
All The Best
Gary |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 254
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 2:34 am: | |
Peter
I'm quoting Dr. Philips on Annie Chapman's murder:
"I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, (in) under a quarter of an hour."
Fine, but he was proved wrong when the ripper performed far greater injuries on Kate Eddowes in what we know has to have been less than ten minutes. Therefore this statement cannot be relied upon as evidence.
How about the Zodiac killer? He wrote letters to the police and it turned it would actually help in the investigation. He warned them about a change in his M.O. which turned out to be really helpful to the officer that took it seriously.
Which officer took it seriously?
In what way did it turn out to be really helpful to him?
|
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 122
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 3:48 am: | |
I was wondering the same thing, Alan! |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 754
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 6:03 am: | |
Hi Gary,
A great post (December 10, 2003 - 1:49 am), with some interesting reasoning. I can support most of it, although I am not so sure about the psychopath diagnosis.
And I believe that Tumblety would have been written off quite rapidly as well today.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 755
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 6:39 am: | |
Peter,
"I'm quoting Dr. Philips on Annie Chapman's murder:
'I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, (in) under a quarter of an hour.'"
That is just one view on the matter. His testimony has since been questioned and there was no over-all support for that the Ripper would have medical knowledge. But more importantly: look at the injuries on Eddowes. Here we see very little signs on skills from someone of a medical profession. She is mostly ripped apart quite savagely, and some organs were destroyed with the knife, the kidney parted in half etc. Quite a sloppy achievement, if you ask me. I believe -- whatever the conditions on the site -- that a doctor would have done a neater job with the knife. It doesen't exclude someone with a fair, basic anatomical knowledge, though, but a doctor... hardly.
"Writing the letters would be putting too much risk into the killings. He was already putting enough by killing these women."
But you said, he wanted to be in the spot-light and that he was proud of his work. Communicating with the police and the press -- just to feel superior to the authorities and to scare the community -- is always risky. I believe the killer you're describing would do such a thing. However, there is nothing about the murders, as far as I am concerned, that indicates that he were such an individual, maybe except for the display of the victims, but that could just as well simply be a result of his need to further humiliate them. We can't be sure what this mean.
"What are these "studies" of yours? My commonsense tells me that it could have happened. You do say it was "hardly plausible." So there still was a possibility."
I don't think you would understand that much of it, Peter, since they are in Swedish. Yes, of course there is always a possibility -- that is not the point -- MY common sense tells me that such a scenario would be highly unlikely; their occupation was risky enough and especially during the Ripper scare. Due to the nature of their occupation they were forced to lead their clients to fairly secluded places -- to not be interrupted by the police -- which was a high-risk move by itself. I don't see any reason for them to expand this risk any further by letting the customer decide the spot. Yes, they were desperate for money, but these women weren't stupid. They knew their way around and their terms were quite known to everyone who wanted to "enjoy" their services.
"By planning, I had meant that the minute he left his house he knew he was going to kill someone."
Oh really? I am not so sure about that. And I would hardly call that planning anyway. That decision could just as well be made out of an urge or instinct.
"But what draws me more into more complex planning was his avoidance of detection.
[...]
How could he avoid those police beat times?"
I can only quote Gary here, Peter (if I may, Gary!): "I would expect to find him living in the general district he hunted within. This would give him a fair knowledge of the backstreets and alleys into which he could disappear." And I believe a great deal of people in East End knew the police beats to a fair degree -- especially those who were customers of the prostitutes. And not to forget -- I think it is fair to assume, that the prostitutes themselves knew the police beats (for the sake of their own profession). So I don't think that detail would have to indicate some sort of brain-storming on Jack's part. And as Gary says, it is quite possible for someone like JtR to calculate at some point; but it doesen't have to point at an intelligent individual, just someone who knew the conditions in the neighbourhood where he lived and who wasn't that concerned about the risks.
And as Gary points out (and as I myself tried to do): if we are looking at an intelligent killer, why did he set himself in that vulnerable position that was the case in Hanbury Street? It doesen't add up. I personally think this points at a killer who generally isn't that much acting with his head, at least not with consistensy, but is driven by an instinct whenever it is pressed upon him.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 49
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 7:32 am: | |
Hi Glenn and Gary and everyone,I tried to write a post on this last night but the machine is playing up so I lost it[its to be repaired tomorrow hopefully].
Just regaring intelligence.Its highly unusual for either schizoid personalities[sho slip into schizophrenia during psychotic attacks] or indeed
psychopaths to be unintelligent.Many big names in mathematics sciece and even the arts have had schizoid personalities and some have sadly had psychotic breakdowns too.Many people with schizophrenia are quite brilliant and few are of limited intelligence.Pernonally I believe Jack to have had a touch of genius even if it was only for evasion-but also because he was able to adapt his needs to his surroundings in such a swift persuasive fashion-taking in all the variables and taking what I see as very calculated risks.
One last point;if he was local I find it difficult to work out how local people didnt appear to know him in the open fray that was the East end in 1888.Best Natalie. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 437
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:38 am: | |
Hi Natalie
My computer has a mind of its own as well.
I think most people would agree that Ted Bundy was the smartest serial killer that we have identified so far. (I think Edmund Kemper was a genius as well, and the Unabomber and Zodiac were others who were probably geniuses) When Ted was hunting victims he was driving a gold Volkswagon of all things. In broad daylight he would approach a number of young ladies at a crowded beach and state 'My name is Ted, I need you to come and assist me'. Of course some of these women were never seen again. The police didn't have to be brilliant investigators to issue a request to the public asking for information on a guy named Ted who drove a gold Volkswagon and was trying to get women to accompany him.
A number of people who knew Bundy including his own girlfriend called the police and said this guy is familiar to me and is named Ted Bundy.
Even then the police did not stop Bundy until an officer pulled him over on a speeding violation and Bundy agreed to let him look in the trunk. Keep in mind that if Bundy was stopped simply for a traffic violation, the officer had no probable cause to search his vehicle. As a former law student he should have known this fact. Inside the trunk the officer found a ski mask, rope, handcuffs, wire, and an icepick.
It seems that the longer a serial killer goes without being caught, the more the police make him out to be smarter than he actually is.
The one problem I can see with my reasoning is that there are numerous serial killers who are never caught. We have no way of knowing how smart these individuals truly are. However, if they are like most serial killers who have been caught, they are not likely to be the evil geniuses that movies and television like to portray.
On your last point Natalie, I expect Jack may have been known by sight to one or more of his victims.
All The Best
Gary |
Natalie Severn
Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 50
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
Gary thanks for taking the trouble to explain to me about Ted Bundy.I know very little about him but have read a bit on these boards and what you tell me is enlightening[very actually].I can see how so much of it is luck and the police dashing off on the wrong direction while the murders continue.However the East end in 1888 was more of a communityof immigrant groups and usually poor indigenous groups with people coming and going a lot but East enders have had a very strong identity from before then some of it to do with political radicals of different nationalities some of it to do with indigenous stuff -I think it was THE hot bed of radicalism at the time [and for quite a while after eg Cable street etc and in such an area people "looked out" for each other.[The East end was one of the places that protested against the breaking up of their community life through new town-planning legislation that broke up such community life.So[sorry to take so long to reach the point]I cant believe that if Jack had been a local man he would not have been known and identified.We dont have such communities now so its difficult to get a handle on.
I accept Jack may not have been a genius but I doubt he was unintelligent.His behaviour to me demonstrates a quick bright mind[but sick].
One last point;In my view he would also have been cold unemotional an
loof and incapable of a close relationship with a woman-which for me rules out the various "lovers" that have been suggested.But Gary and Glen you do both know a lot more about various crime scenarios than me as must be obvious.
Best Natalie. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 1:23 am: | |
Glenn wrote:
"Why can't you accept that we simply have a different interpretations of things?"
I do accept this. What I have never accepted is the posts in which you present your side as the only answer.
"You are yourself constantly arguing as if your opinions are the ultimate truth"
That's a rather biased opinion of my posts, especially from someone who just previously chastised someone for presenting their opinion that Jack was intelligent.
"Would an intelligent psychopath use this spot and this situation? I'm only speculating, but I believe not. "
Then you would need to offer up better locations that were accessible, private and available. I don't remember anyone doing so other than just kind of assuming that there must have been some somewhere.
"He took his time with MJK (if we are to believe she was a Ripper victim -- which I do, but nevertheless...) because it happened indoors!"
My point exactly. It's rational to take longer in a safer location. It's irrational (disorganized / delusionary) to take your time outside when there'sa greater chance of being noticed.
"(Note the expression: "Not true!") "
Yes, do note it. Random has a specific definition. It is in fact not true that the victims were chosen randomly. This would be an example where it's safe to say that's the objective truth, as random means something different than how you used it.
"When I said that they were randomly chosen, I meant that they were randomly chosen as individuals"
Which is what organized serial killers do: selectively choose from a random group of victims, based upon their vulnerability and any personal preference (such as female versus male, adult versus child, and potentially others).
Normally I don't mind people being imprecise in how they use words, but in this case there's a world of difference between "random" and "randomly chosen as individuals." One makes your case, one argues against it.
Glenn: "No, Dan, I think it shows that he wanted as little resistance as possible,"
Not wanting resistence is also a sign of rational thought. Resistance is bad, it draws attention (butif this were in the middle of some well secluded place, like some forest or a soundproof basement, resistance might be fun for him, but he wasn't). A shizophrenic or disorganized person is less likely to even worry about resistance.
"I can agree that it also could indicate rational thinking but it doesen't have to suggest intelligence or exclude the possibility of someone mentally ill. "
Not excluding the possibility of someone mentally ill isn't the same as pointing in favor of someone mentally ill.
"I refer to the mutilations, which I see as being made in a frenzy rather than a controlled act. I know there are many different opinions about this, but personally I believe the mutilations speaks for themselves. "
If they actually spoke for themselves there wouldn't be differing opinions about them.
"To answer you question: yes, I believe it's a sign of insecurity. What is unclear about that? "
It's unclear because you are taking the smart and sane thing to do in the situation (get away as soon as possible so you don't get caught) and trying to portray it as something someone of below average intelligence / confidence / mental stability would do.
"I don't expect you to make me change my mind either, Dan, and vice versa. But I think it is OK to debate just the same."
You telling someone else that he obviously hasn't read the boards or else he wouldn't claim that Jack was intelligent is not saying it's OK to debate, it's trying to stop debate. Me debating against your conclusions is trying to start debate again, not saying that it isn't OK. It sure is tiring to hear you claim that I am against debate everytime I dare to debate your points. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
