|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 13 August 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
Jack the Ripper: Who's the most likely Ripper?:
Archive through 13 August 2001
Author: Mark List
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 03:21 pm |        | After a brief suggestion on another board, I decided that I'd make a new conversation.
On Casebook, there's a ballot for "Favorite Suspect" (Maybrick being #1 at the moment)
I thought that this doesn't real prove anything about the Ripper, but it doesn't say who's popular as the Ripper.
On this board I would like others to list who they believe is the MOST LIKELY candidate to be the Ripper.
I don't have an solid idea on WHO was Jack the Ripper, But at the moment I put My Vote on:
1) The Unknown Ripper.
It seems to me that Jack the Ripper was someone that even today, was never suspected to be the Whitechapel Killer. This leaves room for such suspects as The Lodger, David Cohen, and other "unknown" killers.
Please, add you opinion to who is the most likely Person to be the Ripper. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 03:53 pm | | | Agreed Mark, Jack the Ripper has yet to be named. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 05:06 pm | | Hello Mark and Jon,
agreed also, but before being named Jack has yet to be numbered.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 05:39 pm | | Hello again,
if he has to be "the most likely", I would add that:
a) he was not "lucky" ( had he been so, he would have been such too many times to be realistic ),
b) he was not "lunatic" ( too clever in escaping detection),
c) he was an "east end local" ( a good knowledge of the sites was necessary, to kill silently and to silently escape detection ),
d) as the newspapers often reported at the time: "this fiend can't be english". If he was so he would have felt integrated in the society he was living and would have feared the authority (the police and the judicial apparatus). Could not have been lying to them.
But to speak to them was necessary to conceal the clues left at the sites. That's to say the same sites.
So he was a stranger,
e) he was a very tough guy (no deep sentiments on life and death, used to fight and to blood),
f) he was skilled with knife,
g) he had frequent contacts with east end prostitutes, not necessarily for sex but to take money from them. Probably in competition with other tough guys like Mc Carthy (this should throw out Severino Klosowsky),
h) in some ways he had an "holy goal". That could have been only an excuse,
i) he had accomplices (same kind as him),
l) he liked what he was doing.
But maybe I'm going outway from the goal of this board.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 07:25 pm | | Graziano,
McCarthy was a tough guy? Interesting. Name your source. You state that if a serial killer is killing within his own community he would be afraid of the police and wouldn't lie to them? Serial killers kill within their own community and lie like dogs all the time. As for mugging prostitutes, I'm not aware of a serial killer who was also a mugger. They tend to avoid confrontation if possible. Where exactly are you getting your information, Graz? Please share.
As to who I think the Ripper was, I have no idea. I discount Tumblety if for no other reason than that he was gay. Jack was definately straight. His crimes say that much. I'm interested to see what others say, though.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 05:57 am | | | No sitting on the fence for me on this one.I took an interest in the crimes in 1963 and started a full time investigation into them during 1993.This investigation lasted 9 years. My findings are due to be published at the end of this month.I believe that Robert Stephenson was Jack the Ripper.Dont be shy let's see some names pop up here.As for the ripper never being questioned over the murders we would do well to remember the case of the Yorkshire Ripper. He was questioned about 9 times if my memory serves me correctly. |
Author: John Hacker
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 11:39 am | | I agree that Jack has yet to be named. There has been no convincing case against anyone to date.
John Hacker |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 01:48 pm | | I agree that we don't have a good case against any suspect as yet John , but how many more possible suspects are there out there who are going to be even remotely convincing ? I think we must have come across the Ripper , we know his name , but maybe not in context with the crimes themselves. Who that might be I wouldn't like to say , after 113 years we still have no totally convincing suspect.
I am hoping certain documents may be released after 120 years ( human maximum lifespan ) by the British Government due to being security cleared - one of these may shed light on the mystery.
Most likely suspect at the moment : not my favourite suspect , but probably George Chapman.
Simon |
Author: John Hacker
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 02:12 pm | | Simon,
Unfortunately I don't think we're ever going to see a convincing suspect, but I'm still keeping my fingers crossed.
It's possible that his name has come up in connection with the case, but I wouldn't bank on it. I daresay that SOME researcher has run across his name on a census list or in a newspaper somewhere and not even noticed him.
There must have been thousands of people interviewed by the police during the crimes and it's very likely that he might have been one of them, but unfortunately those records are now lost to us. I don't know what the chances of any further records being released to the public are, but I for one would be a truly happy camper.
John Hacker |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 02:55 pm | | Hello Tom,
let me first answer for Mc Carthy.
Well, you may define him a "nice guy" if you prefer.
How to qualify him could be very subjective.
It depends on how you consider the world tied to prostitution.
I consider it very tough.
Thus I consider Mc Carthy (who undoubtedly was a winner in that world - better underworld ? -) a tough guy.
Now, of course, you are going to ask me in which way he could have been actively connected with prostitution.
After all he was just the owner of houses which he rented by rooms to people and, as he said at the inquest, he was not aware of their use or of the activity of the people living there.
He was even very paternalistic towards the girls who did not pay in time their rent (look MJ Kelly).
And nobody at the inquest seemed to speak negatively about him.
As I said on another board, prostitution, even if low-class has always been (unless it remains a familiar story) a big business.
Big because it generates an enormous cash flow:
- plenty of clients, every day, all hours and all seasons,
- clients pay always cash,
- the cash is free (no fiscal bill),
and because you do not need a lot of what I think in english you call working capital, in fact money to put to work for the business each time getting started. You just have to get a woman on a street and it begins to generate cash.
Of course, I am not speaking about one prostitute in particular but of all of them as a whole.
All this cash is earned often by desperate women who are always defenceless when alone and thus the job is highly dangerous.
Very rarely they profit from the enormous amounts they gain. But the world tied to them does.
Poorly speaking we may say that for this world the goal becomes to take away from these women the money they earn.
Of course the easiest way would be to mug them on the streets and to make them pay for protection.
But you are never sure of what they have earned, you do not know if you can ask more or if they only can pay less, you must stay near them and they always try to cheat you and last but not least, you are acting illegally.
It's a hard way, not paying very much, time consuming.
Often the pimp acting like that are as desperate as their girls and the business does not last long.
Another way, much more easier and convenient and even giving you an image of a good business man not at all related with the street business, would be to answer (and to create) the need of these women.
You need of course capital at the beginning.
They need houses to work in (and to live), they need clothes, they need general things, they need food.
This is already good if you manage to furnish them all these things (against payment naturally), but generally it is not enough to take out all their gains so you create other needs, for example you let them become addicted to drugs and you sell it to them.
At the time there was not any drugs but there was beer or rhum. Let them get used to drink.
That was the way Mc Carthy used.
He gave them lodging to work and to live into, they gave him the "adjusted rent", he gave them all what a chandler's shop could give for an everyday life, and I am quite sure that he had interests in Pubs around Dorset street and maybe even other courts.
It would be interesting to know other businesses owned by member of his family (brothers, sisters, sons). Very often these businessmen use the name of relatives.
For the fact that he did not know the usage of his rooms is simply a nonsense.
A lot of women lived there and they continually walked in and out the court with men.
Just look the night of the murder, Mary Ann Cox, she comes and she stays a quarter of an hour in her room (what for?), then she goes only to come back some time later. Same for MJ Kelly, she brings first "blotchy face", then "Mr Astrakhan".
Another woman (Elisabeth Prater?) stays half an hour at the corner of the street while it was raining (why if not to try to bring home a client?).
And all that movement just besides Mc Carthy's shop, which has also a window looking the court.
When Thomas Bowyer goes to take the money of the "rent" he knocks to the door.
Nobody answers.
What would you do, Tom ?
Because you are a well educated person, you go and come back later.
What does he do ?
He goes round the corner and he looks inside.
How does he dare, what if Mary was washing her ass ? Or what if she was just sleeping ?
Why not to respect her intimity ?
Because when you are a prostitute, your intimity is a property of your pimp.
Why Elisabeth Prater barricades her door ?
Fear of JtR ? At that moment he never killed inside.
Fear of thieves ? Who would take care to go inside such poor houses ?
Dorset street was probably, looking at the number of lodging houses there (which were also used for "immoral purposes") the center of the center (Spitalfields, Whitechapel, Aldgate) of low-class prostitution in London at the time.
If you owned there something like Miller's court it means that you were quite a powerful guy (managing to keep out the competition eager of your business).
To be so powerful you had to be quite tough in this environment and you should be able to lean on more than one "Indian Harry".
If MJ Kelly owed him so much money why he does not go to fetch it himself as a normal landlord would do ?
Because it was an "adjusted rent" and he did not want to implicate directly himself.
If MJ Kelly owed him so much money, why she simply did not do as Martha Tabram, fly away without paying ?
Because he would have been so powerful to find her anyway and to make her work till she paid the bill.
So powerful that nobody dared to speak against him at the inquest.
In that Mc Carthy and Miller's court as they existed in London in 1888 represents without doubt the origins of the "red light streets" system as they exist still today in towns like Antwerp, Amsterdam, Hambourg and others where still today you can find well functioning Miller's courts.
Sorry for the length, never more.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 03:22 pm | | To All
Viper is the only one I know of who is actively searching the contemporary (1888) news articles.
For all those who think Jack was a progressive killer why are you not getting yourselves down to the Newspaper Library, Colindale Avenue, London.
If you are correct I wouldn't mind betting somewhere in the early copies of the 1888 newspapers, '87 or '86 even, you will find stories of assult, muggins, arsons, maybe even arrests of violent individuals......quite possibly this is the only place left which has the real name of Jack the Ripper in print.
He maybe there, all you gotta do is find him.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 03:23 pm | | Jack the Ripper was UNIQUE...the world will never see his like again for another millenium. But, if God chooses to show his likeness to you...it is, most likely, because you are now his ACCOMPLICE.
Dog-Rose O'Ryan :-( |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 03:32 pm | | Hello Tom,
as for the impossibility of lying I must admit that in the way I have stated it, it makes a very weak point.
In fact it is narrowly connected with my belief that Jack could not have been one.
As I already said somewhere, this is forgetting that these women had one mouth with teeth, two arms with hands, fingers and nails, and two legs with feet covered with heavy boots and that they were used to fight.
All this could have been used in self-defense but also to make every kind of noise.
The M.O. traditional versions of M. Fido (facing the victim) or of D. Rumbelow (grasping from behind) are absolutely not realistic.
And the corrections to these versions brought by Jon and Rick, if they make big steps towards feasability, they stop short.
One of the reasons why the plurality of Jack has always been rejected was that had there been some accomplices, sooner or later one would have spoken.
The psychological pressure from these murders would in fact have been so huge that this is absolutely true.
Had the pressure not been enough, the rewards would surely have compensated.
So, why nobody never spoke if there was plurality ?
Because these guys did not feel pressures neither from authority (they did not recognized it) nor from their environment (totally cut out of it).
And because they had a "holy goal" that encompassed every monetary reward.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 03:43 pm | | Dear Graziano,
"Holy goalie"...that just what I said!(I'm back on Father Finn's holy-water agin:-))
Shall we hold a prayer session? A seance? Play that old Blackjackx....
Oh Lord, open thou our eyes! For we be the sheep looking for that cardboard cut-out wolf...who bloweth down all our houses.
RosZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 05:03 pm | | Jon,
Whilst endorsing your comments about research 100% (all UK readers with a genuine interest in the case should try to visit their nearest Local History Library and inspect the newspapers), it must be pointed out, in fairness, that there are distinct problems with searching speculatively in the way you suggest.
Not least there is the sheer time and work involved. It's one thing to go into the library and head straight for the issues covering, say, the first week of October, immediately after the Double Event. That's almost certain to turn up something, and if the paper concerned reported the case in detail it can be very instructive too. But to wade through all issues of the paper for 1887, for instance, is hard work (not least on the eyes where microfilm is concerned) and those little stories and snippets which could potentially pay a big dividend are easy to miss.
Assuming a promising story is found, it is very difficult to tie the individual incident into the Whitechapel murders. Even if the researcher restricted his or her efforts to East London, it has been well documented that it was a pretty violent place and stories of attacks on women were commonplace.
As a 'for instance' we did take an example story of this type for the Casebook Press Project a few months ago. On the same Bank Holiday night that Emma Smith was fatally attacked, a woman named Malvina Haynes was brutally assaulted close to her home in the south Aldgate/Whitechapel area. She too was taken to the London Hospital and was treated by the very same doctor as Smith was. But unlike Ada Wilson's case, for instance, Ripper researchers have never to my knowledge picked up on this incident and discussed it in books. Could this attack (apparently bludgeoning from the report, though it doesn't make it clear) be the work of the Whitechapel murderer before he developed an established MO? (It sounds vaguely reminiscent to me of one of Peter Sutcliffe's early assaults in which he pursued a woman and hit her on the head from behind with a hammer). We simply can't say for sure - and the battering sustained by Mrs. Haynes is one of a depressingly long list of violent incidents reported in the newspapers.
To make progress by studying the papers you'd probably have to look at convictions for offences, and then rely on recognising a name familiar to us from the Ripper case. Alternatively you would have to note all these names in a database of some sort in the hope that future Ripper research might turn up an incident involving one of these individuals.
Even then there can be problems with names. Consider Paul Harrison for instance; he managed to research the wrong Joe Barnett for his book! In trawling the papers I've come across at least two court cases in which the defendants were called John McCarthy, but a quick investigation made it clear that neither of them was MJK's landlord. It's just that his was a common name in an area with a large Irish community.
Talking of John McCarthy, Tom and Graziano may be interested to know that Arthur Harding, a prominent East End villain of the early 20th century, described McCarthy as "a bully, a tough guy" in his memoirs. Though Harding's word is not to be trusted on everything, the two men’s time in the East End did overlap.
In the light of Graziano's comments it's probably worth noting that the word "bully" was contemporary slang for a pimp. However, from the context I'd be inclined to interpret Harding's use of the word with its more usual meaning, i.e. "rough, overbearing or intimidating fellow", according to the dictionary in front of me. That said, it is inconceivable that McCarthy was unaware of the activities of his female tenants, and it has long occurred to me that he might have been taking a cut from the earnings of some of them. I can’t prove it, it’s just a gut feeling.
Anybody interested enough can read the Malvina Haynes report Here.
Regards, V. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 05:14 pm | | Hello Viper,
immensely interesting.
Of course, like in Antwerp, Amsterdam or Hambourg today for the local Mc Carthys, the police should have been well aware of the activities of our "philanthropic landlord".
Bye. Graziano |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 05:33 pm | | Hello Tom,
for the serial killer avoiding contact and thus not being able to mug prostitutes, this could be true if you consider serial killers like Sutcliffe or Gacey.
Very solitary guys with a clear psycho-sexual problem and with a very westernly socio-religious culture centered on the individual person.
Here we absolutely have a series of crimes, but I doubt that we are in the presence of a serial killer.
And there is another culture, by far less individualistic.
As for the MJ Kelly's murder, if incontestably it follows the same pattern and the same goal as the previous, it is a clear signal to Mc Carthy.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 05:44 pm | | Thanks Viper.
Your expertise in news research will help prospective researchers on how to approach such a task and what problems they will encounter.
If its worth doing, its worth doing right and anything worth doing is rarely going to be easy.
It will be a daunting task, but how near are we to solving this case today?
If I lived in England I would happily take on such a search and create such a database, I did not suggest it as a easy way to resolve this mystery but more like a methodical approach with only a chance of a payoff.
100% certainty's are rare in life 
Regards, Jon
(The above is not meant to suggest that I believe Jack to be a progressive killer, but only a suggestion for those that do) |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 02:14 am | | Graziano,
You may be on the money about McCarthy, but Jack the Ripper was a solitary serial killer. The original theory was a that it was a gang...a weak theory then, a weak theory now. Especially in light of all we've learned about serial murder. It was one man. And there was nothing 'progressive' about his murders. He f*cked these women with his knife. Plain and simple.
The Viper,
Thanks for the contemporary cohoberation with Graziano's theory of McCarthy the Super Pimp. That's impressive research. When can we expect another Dossier in RN, and on what topic?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 05:25 am | | Dear Graziano,
"And there is another culture, by far less individualistic."
Please expound!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 09:38 am | | Seeing as how we have drifted a little from the title of this thread, maybe some would like to exchange views on what type of killer Jack was, neither Tom nor I think he was progressive, likely for different reasons though.
Any takers, was he, wasn't he,...reasons why or why not?
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 12:47 pm | | Hello Tom,
let us nevertheless aknowledge that it would not be correct towards the memory of John Mc Carthy to forget to enumerate extensively all his capabilities (with the due and diligent doubts - very few).
Because not only he was:
-a rich landlord,
-a good businessman,
-a powerful pimp,
but he was also a police informant.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Do not ask for sources. Just do not believe it. We shall meet in 113 years for the debate: "Who was JtR (the lucky, lunatic and lonely killer): Kosminsky, Druitt or someone still to be named ?" |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 01:18 pm | | Hello Tom again,
when you say that the original theory was that "it was a gang", you are probably referring to the aggression of Emma Smith as reported by the newspapers.
It was not a theory, it was a fact.
Before dying she did assert that she was attacked by three men (some articles reported only two).
She even added that one of them was a 19 years old man.
Thus someone born in 1869 and someone she could have known.
As far as I know the only theory of a gang with some "substance" in it untill today, has been the one about the "Royal conspiration".
And this one seems quite weak, you are right.
"He f*cked these women with his knife. Plain and simple."
A bit too plain and way too simple.
Could you for example explain me exactly his particular M.O. in the case of Annie Chapman ?
"He" not only "trapped" ( I prefer this european world to your american one ) these poor women but he trapped the local mob and the police.
Unless you think this local mob and the police to be so naive and incompetent (and they were not), to think that a local lonely killer could have created so much mess is pure folklore and is forgetting to embrace all aspects of the case.
The history of Europe is a complex thing.
England has always been one of the centers of it (well, at least after 1066 A.D.).
To transpose nowadays american realities in what was the London of 1888, supporting theories on the cases with F.B.I. profiles and serial killer definitions is simply losing contact with reality.
The solution to the case (very solvable at least in its general lines) must be looked for in the European historical context (plainly said in what happened and what is still happening in Europe) because England is, has always been and will always be part of it.
Was not that what you told them in 1776 ?
Now, do not take this message as evidence of my eagerness against Americans or the US.
I have absolutely nothing against (aside from the behaviour of the Nasdaq this year where there you may say you f*cked us) and aknowledge that much good has been done across the Atlantic.
But Jack the Ripper is an european story.
Sit down and listen.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: The last two sentences have been of course written with a smile, the one about the Nasdaq with painful tears.
Tom, can't you get rid of that guy ? I'm ready to accept the idea of only one Jack for that, even Jill. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 01:35 pm | | "But Jack the Ripper is an european story.
Sit down and listen."
Not if Tumblety was Jack.
 |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 01:38 pm | | Hello Rosey,
from a social point of view a culture which considers the community before the individual (in the economic but also in the law field),
from a religious point of view a faith which is not centered on the behaviour and merits of the person taken as a single.
I cannot expand more because:
- I would answer to the question I absolutely do not want,
- in english is too difficult,
- my brain is too small.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 01:41 pm | | Hello Jon,
I knew you would agree with me.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S. : By the way, what do you mean exactly by "progressive killer" ? |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 01:55 pm | | Hello Tom,
I promise you, it's the last time.
I told you yesterday that besides other things, the murder of MJ Kelly was a signal to Mc Carthy.
It was a message: "Next time your wife and your daughter".
Never the London police and the local mob had been confronted with such a violence and arrogance.
They were simply "trapped" and could not get out of it.
Some methods could not be revealed in the good-thinking and perfect-functioning Victorian society.
Better close the inquest as soon as possible and for Warren to quit.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Of course Anderson was right when he said that the police knew.
Mc Carthy did also. |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 02:11 pm | | Hello Tom,
yes, I know, I promised, well....I do it again.
This is just a curiosity.
A lot has been said about the beauty of MJ Kelly.
Was she beatiful, was she not, we have divergent descriptions.
I think she could have been just very beatiful.
When these guys send you such messages they strike hard and to the center.
A prostitute is a capital for the pimp.
When he loses one, he loses money.
The most beatiful is the one who brings you more money.
They take this one.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 02:22 pm | | Graz.
Over the years contributors on here have suggested that they detect an increase in violence in the murders indicative of a murderer learning his 'profession'. Some have mentioned an escallation in the seriousness of the mutilations and this has loosely been described as evidence that Jack was a progressive killer, progressively becoming more adept & vicious with every crime.
Some of those who have suggested this include the attacks in Feb 1888 on Annie Millwood, in March on Ada Wilson and then in August on Tabram, then Nichols....
I do not agree that this is necessarily the case, though I cannot discount it altogether, I do feel that the attack of Nichols was methodical, systematic and, in my opinion, indicative of a killer who knew exactly how to accomplish his task. The killer of Nichols had killed that way before, in my opinion. And, consequently, I take the murder of Nichols as the first of Jack's victims.
I'm flexible on a number of issues, but presently this is my opinion.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 04:48 pm | | Hello Jon,
I think that the seriousness of the mutilations depended more on the time he had at disposal and the message he wanted to leave on the spot than to the fact that he learned more each time.
I think he had enough time with Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, and that he was disturbed with Nicholls, Stride, Mc Kenzie and Coles.
I do not have clear ideas for Milwood, Wilson, Smith and Mylett or for the "Torsos".
So I suppose that I do not believe in progressiveness.
But I believe one of them took a lot of pleasure in doing it.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 07:15 pm | | Dear Graziano,
They...the plurality...this gang...a team...all have a common goal.Placed in the context of European history and holding to the ideal that the community comes before the individual.
At the same time you believe the person doing the actual killings takes a lot of pleasure from it.
Do I detect a contradiction at the heart of the
communal ethos...or is it just your statements?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 11:35 pm | | Graziano,
Are you on crack? Most of what you've said makes no sense. Incidentally...I've said this before and I'll say it again...Jack was no Jill. That theory is even lamer than the gang theory. Are you just bringing this stuff up to start controversy? And no, I was not referring to the Smith case when I mentioned gangs being the original theory. That was the one tossed about in some of the first articles on the Nichols murder. A people on the street theory.
As to Mary, I think she was probably a hottie but certainly wouldn't have looked her best living that life. Had she remained an indoor girl I'm sure she would have been a looker. I like bigger women with generous backsides and big bazooms, and very pale skin. I hear that fits her description. Anyway, there's my two cents.
Jon,
What do you mean when you say you imagine we believe Jack wasn't a progressive killer for different reasons. My reason is simply that he was a serial killer doing his thing. It was his sexual release. When I'm making dirty rhythm with a girl I'm not thinking about saving the world and I doubt Jack was either. What's your reason for thinking Jack wasn't a progressive killer?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: graziano
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 03:44 am | | Hello Tom,
you are certainly right.
Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 03:52 am | | Hello Rosey,
the cutting was the job of one hand, that s for sure.
An hand that took a lot of pleasure doing it.
But the cutting was only the final act.
Before came the preparation.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 09:39 am | | Hi Tom
What I meant was partly described in my previous poste, nothing radical, just that in my opinion Jack's method was unique.
I try to gather info on street crime in Victorian times, especially knifing attacks. Usually anyone injured or killed by a knife is simply stabbed, or cut in a knife brawl. Stabbing was the most frequent type of injury, not slicing the throat.
The attacks on Stride & Coles were typical of the blitz-type slashing which is associated with street crime, though possibly the throat was the target due to an attempt at copying Jacks technique, "go for the throat", whereas normally a quick stab in the back or breast would have been all that was required.
I think it would be useful to gather info on how the knife was typically used in assaults in those times.
Having said all that.....all of a sudden a different type of killer emerges on the scene, he apparently approaches his victim quietly, he gained their confidence, subdues them somehow, choking? strangling?, lays them out and slicing the throat deep and systematic, then proceeds to slice up the abdomen from crotch to breastbone, etc...etc...
The body positions of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes were remarkably similar, this killer was methodical, and he had purpose. Jack didnt randomly stab his victim in the torso as would have been simpler, he did not want to risk damaging internal organs.
They were subdued without a struggle, layed out in a same fashion, throat sliced deeply then he set to work to get what he came for.
Call him mad?, crazy?, lunatic?, he was methodical and under control and he had a purpose, the purpose was an organ.
I do not see progression in these murders, I see a killer who knows what he is doing and has likely learned this method elsewhere.
Presently this is my opinion, opinions can change, maybe we give Jack more credit than he deserves. I just don't think you see these crimes the same way as I do.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 12:31 pm | | Jon,
I don't think any two people see these crimes the same way. There's no question that Jack wanted to take a part of some of the victims away with him. Obviously that's the case since that's what he did. However, that wasn't his sole purpose. He was a serial killer. If all he wanted were organ specimens he'd have gone about it a cleaner way. He would have murdered indoors and would not have risked himself with all the gratuitous mutilations that had nothing to do with the organ. You could say his mementos were the icing on the cake. What's your take?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: graziano
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 03:46 pm | | Hello Tom,
sorry I did not have the time this morning to develop.
You are certainly right:
- about the "non-sense". I told you, being american, so far from the european historical context.....
- about the "two cents". I suppose this was the value you put on your critics. Easy and "harsh-worded" but not very supported by arguments.
As a "newbie" (but quite older than you) I thought there were some general, even if not written rules on these boards.
For the relation "inter-posters": respect,
For the messages: no vulgarity,
For the arguments: always give answers.
As far as I am concerned these are basic conditions to go along with a discussion.
A discussion means speaking of course.
As far as it is for shouting......
Hope that you are kidding for Jill.
If not, what could I say...."Tusla, we have a problem".
Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 04:19 pm | | Hi Tom
There are so many facets to the mind of a serial killer I would resist stating "he would have done this or that", and I would also not try to limit him by saying "he would have gone about it a cleaner way", this presumes we understand his mind, which we do not.
The opportunity to murder indoors will not always present itself, and especially in the overcrowded East-end, I would not limit him to being able to only kill indoors.
The suggestion that Jack strangled his victims first really hit mainstream researchers in the 60's(?), proposed by Prof's Camps & Cameron. Evidence of strangulation is not apparent in all the victims, though today we tend to accept it as a given.
Strangulation, if it was uniform with them all is certainly a sexual componant as this is where I would suggest he got his sexual kicks from. But thats where I limit it, what followed, the throat slicing is a professional, efficient act of ensuring death.
The mutilation of the abdomen was soley a means of getting at the organ and the facial mutilations have no aknowledged purpose, except they might be his way of creating the misnomer of a deraged lunatic, a way of detracting from his professional ability.
With our limited knowledge it is pointless to pursue a reason for him taking the organ, it is apparent this was his aim and he succeded. I see an organized killer at work, his reasoning cannot be analyzed and should not be attempted if it results in us putting limits on his actions.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 08:27 pm | | Dear Jon,
A most thoughtful summary. It rather leaves us with an end-game requiring some bizarre and utterly meaningless 'moves' if we are to see some semblance of Nothing.
Stick with it kid...only the abyss to cross!
E A Rose :-) |
Author: Jon
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 09:37 pm | | When one tries to avoid talking oneself into a corner, one invariably ends up in the abyss.
I'll try again after the strychnine wears off....
Regards, Jon
|
|
|
|
|
