|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 11 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Profiling of Jack the ripper.:
Archive through 11 April 2002
Author: Marc Sach
Friday, 07 September 2001 - 03:28 pm |        | How would you profile jack the ripper?
As in what hand did he use to cut his vistims and why?
Would you say he was agressive or did he cut them as protection.
Did he know about the body, due to the knowlege of where organs were? As it was uncommon to know about the human body in 1888 or was he just randomly poking about?
Did he like women, or did he dislike them?
Was he religious, as most of the attacks happened in religious areas.
Why did he take the body parts?
Could Jack have been a jill?
Was it an organised murder or not?
Was he a loner?
Poissible jobs?
Id like it if i could have as many varied oppions on this to help me understand the case more and to understand the killer himself, do any of you have your own views? If you do could you please post them here as they would help me a lot!
Thanxs for your time
Marc |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 02:25 pm | | Hi there,
ok this is my profile of Jack:
- white
- male
- around 30 years old
- from Whitechaple
- skilled an intelligent but not studied
- had no idea whatsoever where organs were
- was mentally unstable (borderline syndrome or multiple personality)
- was deformed or disfigured
- was unable to have an erection
- was a loner
- had NO connection to the royal family or the freemasons
- was not religious
- liked women but they did not like him
- became aggressive due to situation
Hope this helps you
Philip |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 06:58 pm | | G'day Marc,
Here's mine:
* He was a white male, around 30 years of age.
* He was not a notable person like Prince Eddy. He sought his fame from his murders, and got it!
* He disliked older women. These were 'hate killings'. Prostitutes were just easy targets.
* He was of the same class as these women and approached them with ease. He was possibly known to them as a regular, safe customer.
* He wore common ordinary clothes so as not to stand out.
* He could not hold down a steady job and so had an excuse for searching all over the East End, (for his next victim?)
* He worked from time to time at a job far below his intellectual potential.
* He may have had a deformity or disability that fooled people into thinking he was harmless.
* He would have lived with an older female relative, within comfortable walking distance from all the murder sites.
Leanne! |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 10 September 2001 - 05:30 pm | | Mr Dowe, a 'syndrome' being nothing but a collection of signs and symptoms, signs being what are seen by the examiner on inspection, for example; facial spots. Symptoms are the subjective experiences explained to the examiner, by the patient, for example; a severe headache. later as the process is understood by the medical world, the progression of these signs and symptoms are explained, thus we now have something of a process, a disease process and this is described as an 'illness'. So what is your explaination of 'borderline syndrome'? If we saw nothing concerning the killer, then we cannot determine his syndromatic signs? Therefore we cannot determine that he had a syndrome! Unless they were left on his victims, were they? rubbish! ED.
I have no respect for the psychologist at all, but I actually doubt you are, or have been one! ED |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 10:00 am | | Excuse me,
but would you like to see my diploma??????????
an angry and very irritaded Philip |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 11:01 am | | Hello Philip,
excuse me, what's a diploma ?
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 01:44 pm | | Even though I am shocked by the bombings I would like to say a few things.
I was born in England but have lived the last 27 years in Germany. So all my training was in Germany. A diploma is the university degree one gets when one studies psychology. I am a "Diplom-Psychologe". I studied it for 6 years (normal in Germany) I specialized in cognitive and forensic psychology. What is an acute trauma Mr Carter?
While surfing the net I found this page and I thought I had found people who are interested in Jack. How to post for the first time? Oh, someone wants to have some profiles. I did that. And what happens? Interest? No way! If you don't want new people to join THEN say so. But don't go at like that.
I could have put "carpenter" and said the same thing. I don't want respect just because I studied psychology, I just added it because I am honest.
Philip
PS If you are interested Mr Carter (by the way it's Philip not Mr Dowe, that's my dad) I would explain what I meant. |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 02:00 pm | | Hello Phillip,
Every community has crackpots. If you plan to stay, do what the rest of us do..ignore them.  |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 02:43 pm | | Hi Ally,
I know...but who are they here? |
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 06:12 pm | | Philip:
Don't feel bad; Ed doesn't respect veterinarians or engineers either, to name a few. We welcome your presence; maybe you could profile a few of the posters here for us after reading the boards.
WTM |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 08:11 pm | | Hello Philip,
a bit of humour here is absolutely necessary.
It is often used to say "Hello, welcome".
I have also got a diploma some years ago.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: I bought it for 5000 thousands usd. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 12 September 2001 - 06:47 am | | Hi there,
ok I will take it with humour :-). Thank you for the offer, but I will stay with my profiling criminals and not you.
Philip |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 13 September 2001 - 07:23 pm | | | Phillip, 'acute trauma' means bumping into three idiots. ED. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 14 September 2001 - 03:55 am | | ED,
sticks and stones will hurt my bones, but words will never harm me. :-)
Philip |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 15 September 2001 - 04:02 pm | | Phillip, 'sticks and stones' will break but not hurt your bones, because bones have very little real sensation, unless either cancer or arthitis has set in.
'Sticks and stones' will, however, hurt the the nerve endings within the the twin layers of skin situated above the bone: dermis and epidermis.
One of my favorite quotes being by that of Willaim Hazlit (1788-1830) who after being knocked down by John Lamb, the brother of Charles said,
'I am a metaphysician, 'therefore nothing hurts me but an 'idea'! ........ He was wrong!
If indeed you are a true psychologist, then explain to me where the author of the 'Maybrick Diary, makes one of his many errors concerning the Eddows murder; the nose that he claims annoyed him in total darkness, therefore he severed it. Then in yet again the same 'complete darkness' he made these very delicate marks on her eyelids! We know it was complettly dark because according to the author of the diary:
One whore no good
decided Sir Jim strike another.
I showed no fright and indeed no light,
damm it, the tin box was empty.
Apparently the 'tin box' was empty of matches, therfore he had no light!
I, am supposed to be 'resting' so let me know the answer when you can!
This, concerning the Maybrick Diary its the 'thin end' of the wedge! ED. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 15 September 2001 - 05:59 pm | | | I hope, Alegria; moderator with the very 'mysterious' name will not delete the above message as being off subject, or will she? ED. |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 15 September 2001 - 06:02 pm | | Ed,
If it's off topic, it will be deleted.
Alegria |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 15 September 2001 - 06:08 pm | | | So you want to talk to me again? Ed |
Author: Monty
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 07:54 am | | CALLING PHILIP C DOWE,
You will never guess what I have found !!!!
Got what you requested mate...up till 2am looking for it.
Do you want me to E-Mail it or as a post ?
Your exact words or just the profile ??
Let me know and I shall do it at the weekend.
Monty
 |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 11:56 am | | Hi Monty,
fantastic. I owe you one. Whatever is easiest for you!
Philip :-))))))))))))))))) |
Author: Jack Traisson
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 01:39 am | | This is a repost of Philip C. Dowe's psychological profile that was wiped out during December's crash.
I just stumbled upon it while I was reading over some material on my computer.
Hope you don't mind me reposting it, Philip.
Cheers,
John
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 05 December 2001 - 04:49 am
Hi Monty and anybody else interested,
this is probably the longest post in the history of this board (12179 characters / 2800 words) but I offered it and Monty requested it.
A profile is basically the analysis of (statistical) data gathered from
a) the crime scene itself
b) the victim
a) any similar previous cases
The results are then used to develop a profile consisting of
a) probable AGE of suspect
b) probable SEX of suspect
c) probable RACE of suspect
d) probable RESIDENCE of suspect
e) what INTELLIGENCE level the suspect is operating at
f) the probable OCCUPATION of suspect
g) the probable MARITAL STATUS of suspect
h) the probable LIVING ARRANGEMENTS of suspect
i) the PSYCHOSEXUAL MATURITY of the suspect
j) the probable TYPE AND CONDITION OF VEHICLE driven by the suspect
k) the suspect's probable MOTIVATING FACTORS
l) the probable ARREST RECORD of the suspect
k) what PROVOCATION FACTORS might drive the suspect out
l) and what INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES would work best with the suspect
Most serial killers that have been identified were male, white, murdered in their own race and were in a 20-35 age group.
When the profile is finished it is up the police to look for suspects who fit. A profile is a success when we have helped catch a suspect. No matter how many points fit. We draw a line between factors like age, sex, intelligence etc. and "psychological factors". My main line of interest is: What made him tick? Why did he commit his crimes? Why did he change his modus operandi for Kelly? Why did he get more brutal? Was it a sexual aspect? Did he hate women? The answers to these questions could help us discard some suspects. But they would never allow us to solve the crime, we need evidence for that. Experience and gut-feeling are normally not enough to profile somebody and that is why trying to profile Jack is a problem because:
a) the crimes have all been committed
b) none of us have seen the crime scenes
c) we have to depend on written reports and witness sightings
d) we are living in 2001 and not 1888
e) staying objective
What is the killer’s modus operandi and what is his signature. The following is a summary of a post by Scott E. Medine (I could not have written it any better). A killer's Modus Operandi (M.O.) can change and evolve. His signature usually does not. As far as we know, a killers signature has never changed. The M.O. is how the perp committs the crime. The signature is what he does to make him feel the crime has been completed. With Jack we see a definite M.O. and signature. We see the M.O. evolving. The signature does not change. His M.O. is attack by knife and post mortem mutilation is the signature. The attacks on Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols show a person being beaten and then savagely attacked with a knife. Chapman, was strangled and then had her throat cut. The killer evolved to the point that the strangulation was more efficient than throttling the crap out of someone. The killer was also in a more secured area. Post Mortem, killer was in a more secured area so the mutilation could be a little more in depth, but it is still a post mortem mutilation and is his signature. Surely, this didn't kill the victim. Stride was attacked in a secured area but he was almost discovered and he fled. Kate Eddowes suffered the full frenzied attack that was meant for Ms. Stride. Mary Jane Kelly.......... pictures are worth a 1000 words.
This profile may be right it may be wrong. For what it is worth I have tried to profile Jack. I will start of with a list of the factors and then try and explain the how and why. One last point: It is difficult staying objective in this case, because unlike reality we all have our favourite suspects who would like to see as Jack. Me also. I have tried to leave these four behind me, which is difficult and I am sure the experienced ones here will be able to detect my favourites in this profile.
So as Robbie Williams sang “Let me entertain you”:
- around 35 years old
- male
- white Caucasian
- from Whitechaple
- skilled and intelligent but not studied
- drifted in and out of work
- not married
- was a loner
- lived alone or with an elderly relative
- was unable to have an erection
- was not sexually aroused by the acts of murder
- was mentally unstable and/or a drug abuser
- was deformed or disfigured
- liked women but they did not like him
- became aggressive due to situation
- dressed normally
- around 1.80m
- physically strong but not muscular
- skilled in usage of a knife
- had NO connection to the royal family or the freemasons
- was not religious
- had no practical experience in removing human organs
- did not keep a diary
- may have communicated with the police
- ended up in an asylum, in jail or on the run
- male
This is easy. A woman going up to a prostitute would have been noticed. A man is something that a witness would have forgotten because it is such a natural sight. A lot of killers get away with the crimes for so long because they seem to be so normal. Plus women do not usally commit so violent crimes.
- white
This is just as easy. If he was anything else he would have stuck out like a sore thumb. And statistically speaking nearly every serial killer is white.
- dressed normally
Imagine a killer in a flashy car or in expensive cloths. There is the sighting by Hutchinson of the “man with the thick watch chain”. I don’t think our man would have worn something like that because he is giving people something to remember. Don’t give yourself away by wearing cloths that can be remembered. Our man probably wore the same cloths and in such a style as was common in Whitechapel.
- around 35 years old
- around 1.80m
- physically strong but not muscular
- skilled in the usage of a knife
Size is easy, he had to be taller than the women he assaulted to be able to grab them from behind, so he would have had to have been around 6ft (around 1.80m). If you try and grab somebody who is taller than you are, you will find it takes too much energy and time. Age is a difficult factor to profile, that is why you will always find a span stretching 10 years. I would think he was between 30 and 40. Reason why? Gut feeling! He needed strength to throw his victims down and keep them quiet. The amount of strength needed to perform his killings was not that large. If you read the post-mortems, it is fairly obvious that Jack did not “rip” but “sliced”. The act of ripping would need a lot of energy and would have left different marks (jagged edges). It seems more likely that he used the knife with a certain amount of knowledge and used it in the way we would if we were carving a turkey or slicing off a piece of cheese. This leads to a different question: “How did he hold his knife?” On a lot of posters we see killers holding the blade downwards. Our man most likely held his knife with blade upwards or away from him. Try performing a cut with the blade down or towards you – you will find you are a) slower, b) using more energy and c) not as clinical. Now try the other way – a) faster, b) less strenuous and c) better to control.
- from Whitechaple
Another obvious one. The way he escaped from the police and left the scenes unseen speaks for itself. It does not necessarily mean he lived in Whitechapel – but that he knew Whitechapel very well. In modern times we would look for: policeman, postman, street cleaner, doctor, street worker, bus driver, taxi driver etc.
- skilled and intelligent but not studied
- drifted in and out of work
I would think he drifted in and out of employment, especially during August and November 1888. The longer his killing spree lasted the less he would have been able to keep up steady employment. He would start having ups and downs. He would have learned a trade and may well have kept a steady income from this trade before his killing spree. It may well have been something in which his working hours were early morning or late night.
- was mentally unstable and/or a drug abuser
Jack was not mad - mad is a layman's term for something that clinically does not exist. Jack knew what he was doing - but he was either not himself or living in two realities. There are cases of multiple personalities described where both (or more) know what they are doing. These people sometimes find themselves as personality B at places where personality A went and they have no idea how they got there. Jack may have been in a similar state. Even though I don’t think he was suffering from MPD. My guess: he was unstable and the act of killing or the act that lead to the killing triggered something in his mind. The only indicator for that is the rising amount of violence. A bit more every time. I don't think he ever thought of being caught - the thought would be too rational for him. In the moment of killing his world was reduced to him - his victim - his knife. Drugs may have played a role in his life, alcohol could have been it.
- was deformed or disfigured
My opinion is that the whores turned him down as a "customer". People tend to think in big categories – but it may been something small: a speech impediment, a harelip or a scar.
- was unable to have an erection
- liked women but they did not like him
- became aggressive due to situation
- was not sexually aroused by the acts of murder
I have a gut feeling that that may have Jacks problem. I have stated that the victims turned him down because he was deformed. But what about those that went with him? They may have been desperate enough (Kelly sure needed the money) and what if he failed? Would that have turned his anger towards himself or would he have blamed the ladies? Now this is a very long shot in the dark: What if his penis was too small? What if Kelly had seen and it and laughed as some whores who are intoxicated may? It could be an explanation for the extreme amount of violence AND for his NEVER trying to pick up a whore anymore. Food for thought. He never tried to perform (as far as we know) a sexual act, so he probably was not aroused. The only experiences Peter Kürten had with sex were of a violent nature. Perhaps our man was the seen. There is no sign of rape or sexual "action". Plus he did not take any souvenirs. Sexual killers nearly always take a "keepsake" to remind them of the victims. I don't believe he wanted to see them suffer. Serial killers who want to live through that special emotion will go for slow killings and spend their time watching the victims die. Jack's killings (except for Kelly) did not take more than 60 to 120 seconds. Slash – Kill - Rip - Over! He did not leave them enough time to suffer.
- not married
- was a loner
- lived alone or with an elderly relative
This is another gut feeling. I don’t think he was able to build up stable social contacts. He may have dated a lot but because of his behaviour never got to the point of marrying. Perhaps he was jealous, erratic, prone to violence or just shy.
- had NO connection to the royal family or the freemasons
- was not religious
Serial killers who have a religious side to their killings are very similar to sexual killers. They tend to use churches as their killing-fields or leave religious messages. None found.
- had no practical experience in removing human organs
This is a general misconception and one that is wrong. He sliced through the body with relative ease and managed to take away specific parts. This is pretty easy, if you are fast and careful – the liver and the kidneys are a totally different colour than the rest of the intestines and so easy to detect. He may have been interested in medicine and studied books.
- did not keep a diary
- may have communicated with the police
In my opinion the graffito was written by a foreigner who had lived in London for some time but was not able to write correct English. That it was written on the wall of building where Jews lived is a certain sign for "typical anti-Semitic" thinking. In my eyes there are three possible explanations for the graffiti:
1) Jack was trying to be funny and showing of his intelligence.
2) Jack was a foreigner and wanted to leave a message to taunt the police.
3) Jack was leaving a message to leave a message.
It has been known that serial killers leave messages that they are desperate and need help. William Heirens left a message on a mirror "Please help me I can't stop". If Jack was a foreigner (German, Dutch, Polish, French etc.) the spelling would point at someone who was NOT trying to be funny but just did not know how to spell. If it was a "cry for help" Jack could be a Jew (possibly also a foreigner) who is trying to lead the police towards looking at Jewish suspects. The killer and the people who wrote the letters are not the same. The killer may have written one or two letters (my guess is that the Lusk letter is genuine) and that out of humour. Serial killers who play games or make fun of things are of the organized type.
- ended up in an asylum, in jail or on the run
Kelly may have been the last victim. She fits if I am right in presuming him to be instable. He may have started by "just killing her", gone into a fit or been pushed over the edge. People who suffer from borderline syndromes can be pushed too far and then never find the way back to being "normal". If I am wrong, then she may not be a Ripper-victim. My feeling is that Kelly was the last but we do not know who the first was. Let alone how many were in between. Five is too small a number especially in such a short time. For a serial killer to have started in August and ended in November has lead a lot of theorists to presume that he was after certain women and a certain number. The extreme increase in violence in the Kelly murder is one of the most astonishing facts in the whole Ripper case. There are five possible carry-ons after the November killing:
1) He could not stop killing.
As no new victims can be accounted for (in London at least) this is theory.
2) He committed suicide or met a violent death.
Very unlikely.
3) He ended up in jail.
Caught for a different crime and never brought to trial for being Jack.
4) He was on the run.
He realised that the police were very close to him and fled.
5) His mind went into overdrive.
This is the most likely situation. I stated that in my eyes Jack suffered from a borderline syndrome. Typical for these people is that they live in two worlds. Over time both worlds get nearer and nearer until something drastic happens and the patient is caught forever in his "second" reality. The Kelly killing could have been this drastic episode. It is not possible to say when but during the killing he may have realised that he now had the chance to live through his most violent dreams. After the killing he would not have been himself anymore. It is therefore most likely that he was picked up on the streets. He would not have reacted in anyway and not been able to give name, address, date of birth or occupation. He could have spent his remaining years locked away in an asylum. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 03:29 am | | Hi Jack,
no it saves me posting it! Even though i must add that I have modified it. After I read it for the second time I had the feeling that - in certain parts - it is not as objective as it should be. So watch this post for slight changes.
Cheers
Philip |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 08:01 am | | Phillip, Jack,
Phillip, so I had spent a whole weekend typing up your profile when Jack had it all along...
.....thanks boys....thanks
Monty
 |
Author: Goryboy
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 12:36 pm | | Dear Philip, Jack & Monty,
Many thanks for persuing, rescuing and posting Phil's excellent profile of JtR. Although I'm not a degreed pyschologist, nor a formally trained forensics expert or profiler, I have studied this and other serial murders for over 25 years.
This is not hard to do in America, where we have anywhere from 50-100 serial killers active at any time. Sadly, ours is a particularly sick and twisted society, which is a boon to the wouldbe profiler. (Given the history of violent crime in this country, one would almost think the U.S. was a bloody hatchery for serial killers).
Also, thanks to the plethora of cable TV productions such as "Forensics," "Forensics Science," "American Justice," "FBI Files," "Autopsy," etc., even the average couch potato here has at least a jostling acquaintance with FBI profiling techniques and theory, Roy Hazelwood, John Douglas, and other profilers, the use of DNA, mitochondrial DNA, hair and fiber evidence, the concept of M.O.s and signatures, Behavioral Science, and etc.
That said, please allow me to address Phil's very serviceable profile, with which I am in almost total agreement. I'll take it in order as posted above, but will break it into separate posts for the sake of everyone's convenience and eyesight.
What we have to consider first, as Philip notes, are the following three key ingredients:
1) the crime scene(s) itself
2) the victim(s)
3) any similar cases (before or after)
We are fortunate that several written descriptions of some of the crime scenes have survived the ravages of time, as well as two photographs of the Kelly crime scene. If we take the canonical five crime scenes as a group, and distill some similar features from the aggregate -- as well as dissimilar features -- we can arrive at a few conclusions as to the suspect, or suspects, M.O., signature and other profiling essentials. (And let's not forget the several eyewitness descriptions we have, however dubious some of them may be deemed).
Let's carry over to the next post....(to be Cont'd)
 |
Author: Goryboy
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 03:01 pm | | (Cont'd):
Let's hit all the items on Philip's list, first with my own answers and then my feeble attempts to justify them:
a) probable AGE of suspect -- 30.
b) probable SEX of suspect -- Male.
c) probable RACE of suspect -- Caucasian, probably a Cockney of Irish ancestry.
As Phil and others (Hazelwood, Douglas, Ressler, et al) have pointed out, most serial killers identified to date have been white, male, heterosexuals aged between 20-35 who killed within their own race and/or ethnic group.
They tend to be of above average intelligence, often employed in menial jobs that fell below their true intellectual capacities, yet which allowed them to indulge their morbid fantasies (butcher, autopsy room attendant, slaughterer, etc.) Many suffered from various physical abnormalities, including speech impediments, facial tics, disfigurements, etc.
In addition, the FBI's Bob Ressler (after interviewing hundreds of captured murderers, serial killers included) opined that the initial murderous impulse was often triggered by some sort of pre-crime stress (loss of job, spouse, loved one, etc.)
The killers tended to come from dysfunctional or abusive backgrounds with either an overbearing mother or a weak or absent father. They often wet the bed until fairly late in adolescence, abused or tortured animals, and indulged in arson. The killings usually didn't begin intil the SK was in his late 20s or early 30s.
Given the eyewitness accounts of JtR that have survived (particularly Lawende's, PC Smith's, and Schwartz's), along with the victims' sex, race, age, residence and social station, I believe it is safe to state the following:
Jack the Ripper was a white male heterosexual, aged 28-35 (I think closer to 30), a loner who lived and/or worked in the Whitechapel area. So far so good. To continue with Phil's list:
d) probable RESIDENCE of suspect -- I plump for a dwelling near the intersection of Brick Lane and Flower & Dean St., either solo or with an older female relative.
e) what INTELLIGENCE level the suspect is operating at -- Higher than the norm, though "he was no rocket scientist," to quote Hazelwood, and was classified as a "disorganized" killer, i.e., he acted on impulse rather than in-depth planning.
f) the probable OCCUPATION of suspect -- Given the locale of the FIRST canonical murder, I believe the Ripper was employed at or near the London Hospital, possibly as a mortuary room attendant, clean-up grunt or other menial job, but one which allowed him to view and even fiddle about with corpses well before the actual murders began. I believe he held down some sort of job, as all five canonical murders were on weekends.
g) the probable MARITAL STATUS of suspect -- Single, no long-term relationship; possible sexual dysfunction.
h) the probable LIVING ARRANGEMENTS of suspect -- As mentioned, either completely alone or with one older relative, possibly an aged mother or aunt, almost certainly female.
i) the PSYCHOSEXUAL MATURITY of the suspect -- I think the Ripper was sexually immature or inexperienced, though he covered his insecurities with an outward show of virility; psychosexually, I believe he was just coming into the full bloom of his hideous sickness at the time of his first attacks -- a bloom which blossomed more and more savagely and violently until the final nightmare with Kelly.
j) the probable TYPE AND CONDITION OF VEHICLE driven by the suspect -- he hoofed it, and knew Whitechapel, Spitalfields intimately.
k) the suspect's probable MOTIVATING FACTORS -- Sick, twisted, morbid curiousity about the female genitalia combined with a savage fury (abusive childhood) and hatred of women in general, prostitutes in particular. I don't believe he was necessarily infected with VD by one, but that is certainly one possible motive. Frankly, I think he just got his kicks from the hunt, the attack and, especially, the rip. The slicing and dicing. And the REMOVAL of bodyparts, when time permitted.
l) the probable ARREST RECORD of the suspect -- He almost certainly had some brushes with the law prior to his first killing. I would look for a man charged with, or at least arrested for, some form of arson, robbery or, later, actual physical assault on at least one other woman prior to Polly Nichols' death, Aug. 31, 1888. I plump for the attack on Ada Wilson, March 28, 1888, and less violent assaults on other women before that (possibly involving a neighbor, relative or co-worker).
m) what PROVOCATION FACTORS might drive the suspect out -- I believe he could no longer satiate his curiousity from fiddling about with dead animals (as a child) or human corpses (as an adult) and simply had to kill one of his own. He grew to love it, honed and perfected his M.O., and became extremely skilled at rapid, silent murder, focused evisceration and escape. He had skill with the knife (like a post-mortem dissection knife), had at least basic anatomical knowledge, and did take home trophies from at least three kills (Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly).
n) and what INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES would work best with the suspect -- This guy was not on a normal playing field at all. He was, by the time of the Kelly depravity, living in a self-contained fantasy world of deviant abberation, thoughts, obsessions and delusions, though outwardly he probably still maintained at least some vestige of normalcy -- though even this may have crumbled after Kelly.
I would have appealed to his need to be seen as a hail-fellow-well-met man of the pubs, a roustering, two-fisted boyo who scored with the ladies at will. I would have joked with him about how easy the sluts of Whitechapel were to lure away for a few pennies. I would have used the bad cop/good cop routine with a partner, who tried to intimidate him, went for the confession, etc., whom I would have ordered out of the interrogation room eventually, thus gaining at least a piece of the Ripper's trust. Then, I would have gone for the throat.
I would have confided to him, in hushed tones, that I, too, secretly liked to bust up women, filly about with them using picks, knives, etc. I would have "confessed" to killing at least one woman, perhaps in Spitalfields, and then tried to draw him out by talking about how tough it was for me to escape the scene, how I longed to spend more time with the corpse, but how I was interrupted and had no choice but to flee. After a few hours or days of this, I think the Whitechapel Killer might have opened up a bit. If not, I would have had no choice but to start beating it out of him, focusing on the ribs, testicles and fingers. (Naturally, I would have recalled my partner by that point, to help me truss him up to a chair, first).
To recap, then, I believe the Ripper was a white male of Irish/Cockney background, aged about 30, roughly 5'5" - 5'6" tall, about 160-170 lbs., somewhat stocky and broad shouldered, very strong, fair complexion, light mustache, green or hazel-green eyes, who lived in Whitechapel and either worked at or near London Hospital. I believe he attacked Ada Wilson on March 28, and stabbed her twice in the throat before fleeing. Furthermore, I think he would have finished the job except that Ada was able to scream loud enough to alert the neighbors, who nearly caught him. I think he was still perfecting his method and didn't have it down yet. The claim that this was merely a botched robbery attempt does not exclude this man (who fits the above description perfectly) as a suspect, since the Ripper in fact robbed most of his victims of what few coins or rings they possessed.
I do believe the Lusk Kidney was genuine -- Catharine Eddowes'. Likewise, I believe the From Hell letter to be the only one ever penned by Jack the Ripper.
I don't think he was Joe Barnett, but someone very much like him in age, size, appearance and background.
I don't think he was a Polish Jew -- he made too many blatant attempts to implicate Jews, in order to throw the police off his scent (Stride killed next to the Jewish International Workingmen's Club, the Goulston Graffito, etc.)
I don't believe he died or was captured after MJK. I think he escaped and continued killing and mutilating women elsewhere. Of all the asylum and infirmary records analyzed by Martin Fido and others, only David Cohen really comes close to fitting the bill (I discount Nathan Kaminsky, Aaron Kosminksy, et al), but, again, I do not believe the Ripper was Jewish. Too many obvious attempts to implicate Jews.
I fear that, in order to catch the true Jack the Ripper, we will have to cast our nets far more widely than the local cemeteries, loony bins or jails.
I think we will have to look elsewhere entirely, outside Whitechapel. Outside London, even. Perhaps as far away as the U.S.A... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 04:57 am | | Hi Gory,
Brilliant post. But I take it I'm not the only one to spot the humorous bit in the middle.
'n) and what INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES would work best with the suspect'
'After a few hours or days of this, I think the Whitechapel Killer might have opened up a bit. If not, I would have had no choice but to start beating it out of him, focusing on the ribs, testicles and fingers.'
(my emphasis)
Just wondered how you turned the suspect into the killer before you grabbed him by the bollocks.
Congrats - you'd make an excellent policeman Mishter Gory. 
Love,
PC Caz |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 07:52 am | | Hi All,
This doesn't exactly go along with the profiling post, accept maybe to give a possible occupation and location of living arrangements for the killer.
The FBI profile states that it is believed that Jack the Ripper lived in, or worked in the same area as his first killing.(This being Polly Nichols, unless we take in accounts for Martha Tabram or as Gory has stated, possibly Ada Wilson.)
Now I know by reading 'People of the Abyss', that the Whitechapel Casual Ward was right across from the Whitechapel Infirmary. That the people staying in the Casual Ward, typically did a lot of the clean-up jobs in the Infirmary, at least in 1902 when Jack London tried out a night in 'The Spike'.
Now is it possible that either Jack may have been a paid employee of the Casual Ward, or maybe even a resident of the Ward from time to time?(This may account for either why he only killed during the weekends or why the killings were spread out over such a random period.) It's in the general vicinity of Polly Nichols. He would have access to the Whitechapel Infirmary, and possibly have learned a little about anatomy as he walked throughout the halls, watching with interest.(This of course doesn't mean he'd be as skillful at his cuts, unless he had prior work as a butcher, or similar occupation using a knife.) Maybe even found out about the vast collection of human organs that resided in the hospital.(One thing that has always tugged at the back of my mind, has been, what does he do with the organs he is 'harvesting' from the victims. Perhaps he might be leaving them within the hospital? They might not question an additional speciman or two?)
Just an idea that has been creeping up the twisting void of my mind.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 07:54 am | | Gory,
If you lose it..dont turn to me.
Im with you re Ada and alot of other things.
Monty
|
Author: Jeff D
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 11:33 am | | Hello !
Very interesting stuff, indeed !!!
I wonder though, what one might make of the Ripper's turning out the victims pockets. Re; Annie Chapman's meagre belongings laid out at her feet, the contents of Kate Eddowes skirt pockets being emptied out onto the ground. If the killer wasn't interested in souvenirs, it would appear as though he was searching for something ?
Some very interesting food for thought on this thread and I do thank all posters for their intriguing contributions.
Kind Regards
Jeff D |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 05:02 pm | | A man has been recently arrested in the Pacific Northwest, USA, accused of murdering several prostitutes. Six counts against him so far. This is not the Green River killer, but another man, a farmer. He hasn't been found guilty yet, of course, but the police are placing confidence in their evidence---which includes, evidently, bodies on his property.
The only point I wish to make is that the man is 52 years old, and the most recent murder with which he has been charged happened last June.
I still can't quite see why Hazelwood and similar theorists say with confidence that the Whitechapel murderer is likely to be 25-35, etc. etc. These horrible crimes showed a certain amount of competence. And horribe as it is, there are many case out there of serial killers being middle-aged. I don't see any real solid reason why the Whitechapel murder couldn't have been 45 or 55 or even older.
And it still seems to me that Elizabeth Long's 'sighting' --possibly the best eyewitness--- would nullify nearly all of Hazelwood's 'profile'.
I guess I don't have much faith in this sort of thing, but might be open to persuasion. Comments? Arguments?
The devil's advocate, RP |
Author: Peer Schnee
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 05:29 pm | | Jeff,
I think that JTR don't search something, because than the things are not to be situated in the way their are placed. There are many other possibilities, indeed.
(a) JTR was a "artist"
(b) it is a personal ritual, who knows what is meaning is
(c) he would give with this a clue who he is to the police but nobody recognizes (what Feldmann would suggest, I think)
(d) in some culturs it is a ritual to place the possession of the deceased in the grave, like a gift for the death and the rebirth
I agree with you, that this question about this fact is a question, which are lead to some solutions, when we have the answer(hihi)
Best wishes
Peer |
Author: Goryboy
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 06:04 pm | | Hi, Caz:
Yes, good question, that. I should have been more explicit, re, suspect = killer. I was assuming, of course, that our suspect was in fact the killer, based on Philip's phrasing of his question. If we KNEW it was JtR, but he wouldn't talk, these were just some ideas that occurred.
If, however, the man was merely one more innocent schmo dragged in from the street, I doubt he would have had much to say to any police officer "confiding" his own murders to him. Probably would have been only too glad to get out of the station and back to the pub! 
Cheers!
Mishter Duckerty
(not a policeman) |
Author: Goryboy
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 06:10 pm | | Hi, R.J.,
Just basing my guesstimate of 30 on other eyewitness descriptions (besides Mrs Long/Durant), and on FBI profiling stats. He could very well have been much older -- but somehow I doubt it. Too many other psychological (or even psychosexual) earmarks to this case seem to me, at least, to indicate a younger man -- the proverbial 28-36 yr old. Since several eyewitnesses describe the man I've described earlier, I'm plumping for 30.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Raphael Aglietti
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 06:18 pm | | Goryboy, I truly feel that part (e) quite possibly is the essence of the entire case for a variety of reasons. You seem to suggest that he was disogranized, but would it not be equally plausable that he was in fact extremely organized and due to the swift and brutal nature of the crimes and perhaps police could not conceive (read: accept) the idea of such cold and calculating individual?
I agree that people can be of average intelligence but be very cool under pressure. Luck would seem to catch-up with Jack on five murders if there wasn't at least some foresight and planning. I'm not suggesting there was an elaborate plan per se but I do feel JTR had to plan certain aspects of his killings in order to get away with the massive damage that he did. He also had to have known traffic of those areas were at various times.
To actually eviserate someone without any planning would cause carelessness when it comes to evidence at the scene of the crime.
I do understand that police work is more scentific now, but even still the evidence that was left was scant at best and when evidence was found it seemingly did nothing to clarify matters but rather cause more confusion.
Is it not possible that the Ripper could have been "blessed" with the traits of a brilliant mind ahead of its time along with the ability to make cold and calculated decisions under pressure?
-Raphael |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 11 April 2002 - 05:45 am | | Hi Raphael,
With no chance of forensic testing in 1888, and the victim very likely unconnected to the killer in any way before their fatal encounter, I'm not sure what evidence at the scene could have provided the police with a suspect, once Jack had left it unseen, unless he was careless enough to leave something of his behind that could be traced back to him.
If you think of Jack's five killings as five business transactions between an anonymous client and a prostitute that went unnoticed and unrecorded for posterity by any third party, as hundreds would have done, even during that autumn and in the same area, the only difference was the body that was found after the event.
Hi Gory,
If we KNEW it was JtR being interviewed, but he wouldn't talk, shouldn't we be using the evidence that led us to that knowledge, rather than relying on a 'confession' brought about by torture, to bring him to trial?
That was my point.
One copper's 'knowledge' is another's reasonable suspicion, another's unfounded opinion and yet another's premature promotion opportunity. If you could go by any of those, you could pension off the senile old judge and send the jury, consisting of those with no holidays booked and nothing better to do, to the pub indefinitely.
Cheers.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 11 April 2002 - 07:51 am | | Raphael,
Welcome,
I disagree about him being fairly organised.
All the murder sites are open (apart from Kellys), anyone could have walked in on him at any time. It doesnt show a organised, pre-empted mind to me.
I feel Jack was operating to his own agenda and was fairly ignorant of his surroundings, this or he just didnt care who saw him.
Either way I cannot see how that points to organised rather than disorganised.
Monty
|
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 11 April 2002 - 08:53 am | | Part of the puzzle is looking at what evidence is not at the scene. What should be there but isn't. The big clue is in the blood.
It is fact that a living body can be stabbed and/or have their throats cut and leave little blood. The key word here is little. This had been covered before. There will however be tons of trace evidence. Sadly, forensic science in 1888 is not what it is today and this identification of trace evidence would be hard and its interpretation even harder. The fact that there may have been little blood due to the injuries does not mean the killer would not have been soaked in it or other bodily fluids.
After viewing 100+ autopsies in my career, it is amazing how messy the procedure can be. Once the human body is open blood, fat, bile and other fluids are immediately present. The blood is not coagulated as a lot of people may think, at death the blood loses its ability to congeal thus it stays in its liquid state. In order for the killer to remove the body parts he did, especially the kidney and the heart, he would have to sink his hands and arms into this liquified mess. Working as fast as he did would have meant he would be more covered in the “stuff’ than a medical examiner or surgeon who was purposely trying to avoid the mess.
Question: How could the killer leave the scene without so much of a trace of the victim’s bodily fluids on him?
Answer: He couldn’t.
He left the scene a mess. Which means he either changed clothes at or near the scene or ....covered himself up via trench coat, gloves etc....
Which brings us to another conclusion about the killer. Where and how did he do his laundry. Surely after so many killings he would eventually start to show signs of his nocturnal ramblings. If all of his victims and their significant others lived in flop houses and wore everything they owned, then how come our killer wasn’t constantly walking the streets in everything he owned and smelling to high heaven along with being coated in blood and “goop.” If he was then EXTREMELY dirty and smelly people were the norm. The key word is extremely. If he did then the police were as blind as the media made them out to be. Or the other possibility is he didn’t, he was able to maintain separate changes of clothes and had access to cleaning them. Which would be a private matter, maybe even part of his ritual. If he had someone else do his laundry then it would have been someone he would have trusted with his very life. A spouse or devoted family member would be my guess. If he could afford all of these “extras” then how or where did he get his income?
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 11 April 2002 - 09:29 am | | As far as interviewing the killer goes, it really depends on the person being subjected to the interview. (Interrogation is not politically correct nowadays. Every person is unique. But there are guidelines that fit everycase.
If the killer did match the given profile, then I would hope you would not be expecting an intelligent conversation.
The secret to any good interrogation is to watch the body language of the suspect and play off of what he is giving you. Kinda like American Football. Don’t force the throw, make the read and take what the defense is giving you (or so my brother tells me, he’s a coach he knows more about it than I do.) Read the suspect’s body language and go from there. Listen to his verbal clues, is he visually, auditory, ofactory taste or sensual based in his discriptive language. Watch for the hedges and the way he answers your questions. Does he like to elobrate, does he evade (like a politician) or does he keep his answers short and sweet. Does he start answering one way and then switch in midstream. Watch his eyes and his hands (goes back to body language) If he folds his arms or crosses his legs away from you......... go with Caz’s method and start the beatings.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 11 April 2002 - 09:51 am | | Hi all,
The labels "disorganized" and "organized" refer to the degree of personality aberration, which is evident in how chaotic or controlled the crime scene is. The labels "asocial" and "nonsocial" refer to whether the person is a loner because of weirdness or by choice.
There are two types:
a) The disorganized, asocial offender (IQ below average, 80-95 range; socially inadequate; lives alone, usually does not date; absent or unstable father; family emotional abuse, inconsistent; lives and/or works near crime scene; minimal interest in news media; usually a high school dropout; poor hygiene/housekeeping skills; keeps a secret hiding place in the home; nocturnal (nighttime) habits; drives a clunky car or pickup truck; needs to return to crime scene for reliving memories; may contact victim's family to play games; no interest in police work; experiments with self-help programs; kills at one site, considers mission over; usually leaves body intact; attacks in a "blitz" pattern; depersonalizes victim to a thing or it; leaves a chaotic crime scene; leaves physical evidence; responds best to counseling interview)
b) The organized, non-social offender (IQ above average, 105-120 range; socially adequate; lives with partner or dates frequently; stable father figure; family physical abuse, harsh; geographically/occupationally mobile; follows the news media; may be college educated; good hygiene/housekeeping skills; does not usually keep a hiding place; diurnal (daytime) habits; drives a flashy car; needs to return to crime scene to see what police have done; usually contacts police to play games; a police groupie or wanabee; doesn't experiment with self-help: kills at one site, disposes at another; may dismember body; attacks using seduction into restraints; keeps personal, holds a conversation; leaves a controlled crime scene; leaves little physical evidence: responds best to direct interview)
Take a look at try and find Jack.
Philip |
Author: maria giordano
Thursday, 11 April 2002 - 09:56 am | | Jeff D,
The turning out of the pockets could be another way for Jack to express his total control over the victim-- " I can take everything from you, your life and your belongings." type behavior.
Maybe? Maria |
|
|
|
|
