Author: Carl Dodd
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 03:55 pm |        |
| When police officers work on a murder case or a series of murder cases it is always a team effort. Information gets exchanged to all the members of the team. A few years ago, when I was still in law enforcement, I got to help work on a couple of serial murder cases. In both cases most of the officers who worked on the cases came to the conclusion that the murderers had killed more people than the victims that we had found. In 2 cases we knew that we were missing at least one more woman. Based upon what I've seen in these modern cases, I suspect that Jack the Ripper probably did kill more than 5 prostitutes in 1888. I also think that some of the Ripper's victims may never have been found at all. Comments? |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 09:15 pm | |
| If he killed more than the five, do you think that he managed to hide them and control himself better early on and then as time went on he became more frenzied as he lost control? |
Author: Carl Dodd
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 11:26 pm | |
| Yes, I tend to think that he may have hid some more of his victims so that they wouldn't be found by the public or police. Was there any noticable increase in the number of missing women or prostitutes in that time period? |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 12:46 pm | |
Yes, he most likely did kill before 1888 Whitechapel,but maybe not IN Whitechapel.
If he lived in London he might go somewhere else to commit murders--either on homeless people or children or animals...
I'm of the strong belief that the Ripper's MAIN reason for attacking prostitutes was that they were simply EASY ACCESS--not just because they were women.
Consider: (1)Dark misty night in late 1888-great to hide detection. (2) Slum of town-violence isn't uncommon, everyone keeps to themselves. (3)Prostitutes-lead dangerous lifestyles, and ,in the mind of a killer, are on lower rung of society, and no one would "miss" them, (4) Women-if the killer is a well-built man, overcoming a woman who isn't as physically powerful would be easy.
So having all this in mind, a lot of what JtR was doing was transferring anger onto those people that were easy victims.
And it's not uncommon for such a killer to have committed crimes of violence well before he's known or caught. (For example, torturing animals.)
Mark
p.s.
I have been trying to get an answer about this question and no one is helping: Were there any murders at the time of Jack's "reign" that were NOT attributed to him. (i.e. someone is killed and the police KNEW it wasn't the Ripper.) Were there more then five murders between August and November 1888? |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 12:48 am | |
Mark
In response to your question....would you consider the Torso murders? (Rainham, Thames, Pinchin St.)
As far as other 'Ripper type' murders go, the press up and down the country were alert to any such similar, even not so similar, knife attacks. Remember the kid attacked with a knife at Portsmouth during the Ripper scare?
I think some would agree that Jack would likely have had a history of violence, from muggins, woundings, arson and possibly, like you suggest, animal torture. But then again, that would depend on your view of what Jack was and how he evolved.
The police may have had a record of such previous minor offences, evidence long gone by now.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Mark List
Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 02:08 pm | |
Jon,
Thanks for the tips and insight. To respond to your though of what my view of Jack is, I'm simply looking at him from a "20th century" Serial Killer psychology point of view. (i.e. FBI profile)
Sure, I know that there are many-MANY-different ways that JtR went from a regular guy to the monster he's known as, but let us not forget that there are certain signs that help us pinpoint origins of violence.
Mark |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 04:10 pm | |
Mark
You raise an interesting point...
I'm simply looking at him from a "20th century" Serial Killer psychology point of view.
How much influence is there today on the minds of children, teenagers & adults by way of hack 'n slash'em type movies?
How many authors/script writers who write about murder have been influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the original Ripper murders?....or even by erroneous tales of the 'supposed' facts of the Ripper murders, or any other past murders for that matter?
We tell scary stories to kiddies about a shadowy figure who stalkes the alleyways and passages, who has red fiery eyes and sharp teeth and will steal away little children who stay out too late.....etc...etc...
You see my point?....even that little scenario has obvious 'Ripper' influences. And later in life these same little children in a few rare cases turn into nasty little adults who stalk the streets in search of victims. Whatever these individuals eventually do to their unfortunate victims in some respects can be traced back to experiences or stories they either were told or read about, or saw in a movie, which in turn was influenced by stories and books ....eventually influenced by such old masters as Dracula, Countess Bathory, Jack the Ripper, Sawney Beane, Burke and Hare, 16th Century Witchtrials, Henri Landru....the list is endless.
The point is that to a certain degree many (how many?) of todays murderers have an unrecognised possibly subliminal(?) influence to act like the perpetrator of past murder cases, therefore, the correct way to view a profile is to retrieve it from past 'historical' cases. Not that Jack the Ripper acted in some degree like Chikatilo or Sutcliffe but that these modern serial killers act like Jack the Ripper.
In a modern scenario of an uncaught serial killer you would try to profile him based on recent past (Bundy, Dahmer, Gacey, etc) examples, in order to help you catch the most recent perpetrator. This is a correct application of profiling, but in order to profile Jack....you must find what influenced him......you cannot profile a murderer from the past by using modern murderers who may have been influenced by him
The result is akin to a circular argument, and will lead you down the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" approach.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Mark List
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 01:23 am | |
Jon,
I see your point, but forgive me, I think you took what I stated TOO literally.
I'm not looking at modern murderers to profile a past murderer, I'm looking at the "cause and effect" scenario of human nature. In ANY scenario, things are going to be the same - whether last year or a hundred years ago.
Take an example of Albert DeSalvo,known as the Green Man , and of course the Boston Strangler, (YES I KNOW A MORE RECENT KILLER THAN JtR) However; he grew up in a one room apartment with numerous siblings and watched, while growing up, his father raping his mother in front of the children.
Now, that obviously had a major effect on Albert and it showed itself with his attacks on women.
So, here you have a "cause and effect" scenario that would not have been thought in 1888.
That's were I'm coming from, not "Richard Chase, running around in a black cape, must have had an influence on Stoker when he wrote Dracula."
Cheers,
Mark |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 09:52 pm | |
Jon and Mark;
I just found this discussion it has been awhile since I've posted. I also surmise that Jack the Ripper killed more than the five canoniacal victims. I personally believe that Martha Tabram is a Ripper victim.
Having no background in Law enforcement, I can not speak from authority, but as I understand it serial killers generally have more victims than the police initially attribute to them. That we have no more than five canoniacal victims may simply be because the police didn't capture Jack the Ripper. Without documentation I hesitate to state whom the victims might have been but I surmise there were murders that were not credited to Jack the Ripper because the bodies may have simply went missing or he may have started out with strangulation without mutilation.
I'd like to hear your opinions on this and look forward to hearing from you on the boards, Kindest regards, Neil |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 07:54 am | |
| I think you have a point. Jack didn't just spring out of the woodwork as an accomplished assassin. I think he worked up to it. He may even have started, as Jeffrey Dahmer did with animals. |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 10:30 pm | |
G'day Neil and Diana,
Both Carl Dodd and Stewart Evans have written specifically about this issue on either an archieved part of this board or another board.
It's well worth looking at if you're interested.
Jules |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 03:50 pm | |
| I would say that the Ripper victims are from Martha to Coles even the torso. I would rule out Emma Smith as she was attacked by three hoods. It would be in keeping with the serial killer MO and this would rule out M Druitt as he committed suicide before the other later victims i.e 1889 onwards. In fact this would rule out several other Ripper suspects. I'm keeping a firm eye also on Chapman. There is a cooling of period for most serial killers as well we now know. Usually and often times the intensity of his violence increases as well thus the torso later. The working mens club where Stride was found is a very cute hide out for our man also and more then likely he did frequent here at the weekends. This eye witness account also of a Coldstream guard is a very interesting little clue as well. He certainly did stake out the locations as this is typical of a serial killer before he picks up his victims and I would say also that these victims were most certainly picked at random. The next thing the double event, in order to kill like he did the two victims in such a short time he could have taken the train. I know someone will laugh at this but it's very likely studying the map and several later victims were found there i.e. Pinchin victim for example. So he did us this form of transport making him a mobile serial killer as well. I don't agree with the idea that the Whitechpel murderers and the Ripper murderers were not the same. There is also to much made out of the Graffitt Juwes etc because there was no real evidence to say he even did this and it's just a mispelling as well. I think it was done to blame the Jews wrongly. I would say that he did this because he wasn't a Jew. |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 11:49 am | |
James,
A train at midnight ?
Was there any running at that time of evening, or morning?
monty
 |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 03:13 pm | |
| It's just looking at the map of whitechapel. The route for Stride to Eddowes would indicate this very much. How could he have done this so quickly? except by planning out the events in advance. Also he did I'm sure enter the working mens club to escape from the coachman who found Stride. This event is a very important turning point of the Ripper I'm sure of it. He was certainly a mobile killer not like the Yorkshire Ripper who mainly kept to a small area his own house. Also he most have kept residence around the railway area all the time being mobile. The body at Pinchin for example is in my view a Ripper victim as well as Coles. Let me know Monty if you have any details on this time table. |
Author: Monty
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 08:08 am | |
James,Ivor.
The area Jack kept to was much smaller than Sutcliffes.
Also it wouldn't take him more than 10 mins at the most to walk from Berner st to Mitre sq. So if Liz was done at 1:00am (Deimshutz found her at that time fairly warm so I assume, like others that Jack was disturbed) and Kate was done at around 1:35-1:45am then that would have given Jack plenty time to get from one to the other.
Monty
|
Author: James Terence Kearney
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 08:43 am | |
You made a good point. One thing is certain they did know each other in most cases anyway it's their trade so to speak. I'm going on the theory that Jack picked these victims at random, if he did they we have a whole new ball game on our hands ie motive and the killings did continue after Druitt committed suicide. He's not a good suspect. Dates and numbers give me a headache to be honest. No book or item ever seems to agree. I just taught that they might be a connection with the Pinchin body and saw another angle here. I think there is. In fact there was another one found also along this route. I have seen the route marked out by the police at the time and it seems reasonable enough. He's escape route would be a long the rail system there's no doubt in my view. And it would be much larger than his killing zone.
The more and more I read into it the more I believe it's James Kelly. Kelly fits the discription of many eye witnesses a well. Kellys domestic problems are a clue he does fit the profile to a T. His where abouts during the murders are of course vauge but it's the vaugeness I think that is giving him away. I hope some day I proof right. |
Author: Diana
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 02:45 pm | |
| We always assume that Jack only had 5 victims because of what was said by McNaughten who cuts it off after Kelly. But I just took a look at Sir Melville's bio. He was up for an important appointment in 1887 but was blocked by Sir Charles Warren. After Warren's professional demise McNaughten was appointed Assistant Chief Constable, CID in June 1889. Later he was promoted to Chief Constable. One would suspect that his feelings toward Sir CW were probably not of the kindest. What better assumption, then, that all the killings happened on Warren's watch. Even if he were not mad at Warren he would not be anxious to ascribe any killing that happened after his appointment to Jack. It would be within his interest to convince the populace that Jack was gone, because if Jack were still active McNaughten would be accountable to catch him. The memory of what Jack's rampage did to Warren's career was still fresh in the minds of every police official. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 06:47 pm | |
Diane,
The truth is that Macnaghten was in no way accountable for catching Jack. When it comes right down to it, neither was Warren, neither was Monro, who succeeded Warren, or Bradford, who Succeeded Monro in 1890.
Sir Charles passed the case to on to Anderson and Swanson, and after October 6, 1888, all correspondence and matters dealing with the Ripper went through Anderson's office. Anderson remained in charge of the case until the file was closed in 1892. MacNaghten was deputy to Anderson until the latter's retirement in 1901. And as a matter of record, Anderson believed Tabram to be a victim of JtR.
Monro, Warren's successor believed that McKenzie was a victim of JtR, while the Pinchin St. torso was not.
The reason for Warren's resignation, which happened the day before the Kelly murder, had less to do with JtR and more to do with Warren's squabbles with the Home Office over control. After Gladsone's government fell in 1886, Henry Mathews would not grant Warren the free hand that previous Home Secretary, Hugh Childers had.
Ultimately, the five canonical has never been completely accepted. Not by MacNagten's contemporaries, the press, or subsequent writer's, researchers, and historians.
Because serial killers vary their M.O. on some occasions, and many have been mobile, the number of victims is a difficult question. Which is why so many researchers have looked hard at attacks and murders prior to August 7, 1888, and after November 9, 1888, both locally and elsewhere.
James,
I know of a few researcher who looked into the angle that Jack may have been a railway man. I'll see if i can find the information for you.
James Kelly does not fit the description of JtR. His cousin said he had dark hair and a heavy moustache. Of course that doesn't rule him out as a suspect.
When you include Coles as a victim, you can rule out Chapman too. He didn't return to England until the spring of 1891.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 08:54 pm | |
Hi Monty, 10 mins is correct and he did indeed have time to get from one site to the other as you stated. We have two missing periods of time. These two missing times indicate that Jack did not go straight to Mitre Square on leaving Berner St, or to Goulston St on leaving Mitre Square.
Jack the Ripper had an MO which was very distinct in various ways.Only 5 victims were killed with his MO.Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes,and Kelly. I have gone over the two points made above in detail on these boards. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 09:15 pm | |
Hi Carl I believe you are right in stating he killed more than 5 victims. I think he killed before the Whitchapel series took place. And he may well have killed elsewhere after the series took place. Old habits die hard.
Monty, Trains were running in the area at the time of the murders. One went through Bucks Row
(Whitechapel Stn) 15 mins before Nichols was found. |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 07:58 am | |
Ivor,
Would that be a passenger train or a goods train?
I believe (And I am no expert) that goods trains run most of the time in the late evening/early morning.
Monty
|
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 02:40 pm | |
| Hi Monty, Good question and one I cannot answer.You are right that goods trains run late at night.I believe they still do. I have a friend who works at Aldgate East Station I will try to find out. |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 11:11 am | |
There are some very interesting points made of late. The time and the goods train. I would guess that it was a goods train. Some of these killers are on the run a lot of the time and JtR was no exception, and his cuteness in escapng tells use something about him also. He planned it very well. Also in relation to letter writing as I understand most disorganised killers don't have any interest in the media in general. So why would JtR waste time in writing these letters? Many are of course fake. I'm not sure if the dear boss letter is a fake but my guess is that 90 per per cent are fake. I feel that the dear boss letter and the follow up one is geninue and the Lusk one is also geninue for the present. In relation to eyewitness accounts I would disaguard many except one Schwartz if he's telling it as he saw it then we have to rule out James Kelly as a suspect I'm not in favour of rulling him out however. You made a very good point in ruling out Chapman because of the Coles body and you would be correct. It would be very interesting in finding out if there had been may missing persons increase particulary single young women at this time also this would certainly put a different picture on the case in my view any one find out?Single women would change his MO I'm guessing there was missing women also at this time. So you see the logic in ruling out suspects. If we extent his crime to Coles and after then Kelly would fit in here also and any lead is beter then none and eliminating suspects Druitt and Chapman is logic as well. It was total incompetence from the powers that be nothing else and Warren can take the blame as well as his successers. The Pinchin torso is certainly a Ripper job.
So what have we got?
1 Rule out Emma Smith but not the period before her. Remember Kelly escaped from Broadmore around Janurary. He cut his throats wife in the same style as the victims. He did acording to Tullys book know Anne Kelly the last of the five victim known and this is the biggest clue of them all I think.
2 killings were contined up to and including 1891
Druitt and Chapman Royal theory out of the list. |
