|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 December 2002
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research and Dissertations:
Profile of the Whitechapel Killer as a disorganised killer:
Archive through 13 December 2002
Author: chris scott
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 11:52 am |        | The organised and disorganised killer and its relevance to the Whitechapel Murders
The differentiation of serial killers into "organised" and "disorganised" categories must be treated with a due amount of caution as any one exemplar is unlikely to show 100% adherence to either category but may well contain elements of both. However, the limited occurence of this does not invalidate the use of these categories in the compilation of profiles or the broad typing of such killers.
From the studies of Ressler et al the following broad list may be drawn up to outline the general characteristics of the organised and disorganised killer.
METHODS:
ORGANISED KILLER:
Exhibits evidence of planning the crime
Victim will be targetted stranger e.g. killer will target a certain area or pursue a certain physical type
Will use ruse to gain control over victim
Has good verbal skills
Has high degree of intelligence
Victims are personalised and recognised as individuals before killing them
Logic displayed in every aspect of the crime
Will adapt his behaviour to the demands of the situation
Will learn as he goes and get better at what he does
First victim will most likely be closest to where killer lives or works
First crime may not be thoroughly planned
Frequent use of restraints which killer will carry with him
Will use own transport or even victim's transport
Will make conscious efforts to obliterate evidence of the crime
Victims usually nude
Body will be moved and attempt made to hide it
Crime scene may be "staged" to mislead authorities
May take personal items belonging to victim
Will often complete sexual act with living victim
Act of killing may be protracted with rape, torture etc to increase sense of control over victim's life
Will keep track of the investigation to heighten and prolong the fantasy
DISORGANISED KILLER
Does not choose victims logically
Victims may be "high risk" - victim may fight back with evidence of defensive wounds
Has no interest in personality of victim and will take steps to render them unconscious, cover their faces or disfigure them
"Normal" logic is not displayed in the crimes
Will not carry anything to immobilise victim but may improvise from the environment where crime occurs
Would most likely walk to scene of crimes or take public transport
Will not attempt to obliterate evidence
Body will be left where killed with no attempt to move or hide it
Crime scene will not be "staged"
Depersonalisation of victim may result in attempts to obliterate face or post mortem mutilations
Will not take objects belonging to victim but rather body parts or clothing
Does not complete sex act
Killing will be "blitz" attack and carried out quickly
PERSONALITY TRAITS
ORGANISED KILLER
Father in steady and stable work
Discipline inconsistent
High entitlement expectation in the child
Can be physically attractive
Outgoing and gregarious
Externalises hurt, anger and fear
Aggressive and sometimes senseless acts in childhood
Will be noticed in childhood and will take role of bully, class clown etc
May work in jobs above menial but their aggression may provoke problems
"Trigger" event in relationship, work etc. may trigger first murder
Crimes triggered by events in the world around them that impact on them
Feelings of superiority to others common
Will often follow progress of the investigation
Ofter sexually successful and may have multiple partners but relationships are usually short lived
Angry at society and feel they've been mistreated
Feel they are intelligent and have not achieved their potential because society is against them
Surroundings and person may be well presented, even smart
DISORGANISED KILLER
Father's work if often unstable
Background of harsh discipline
Serious childhood strain because of alcoholism, illness etc
Internalises anger, pain and fear
Unable to "let off steam"
Lacks verbal and physical skills to express emotions in a socially acceptable way
Often physically unattractive
Poor self-image
May have physical ailments or disabilities
Feel inadequate and behave accordingly
Deep withdrawal from society - "loners"
Cannot relate to others
Will probably live alone or with a single parent
Underachievers - not high intelligence
If they work will be menial, low status employment
Quiet in school
Acquantances from past often don't remember killer when he is caught
When remembered will be described as quiet. polite and docile
Precrime stress - i.e.. trigger event - often absent
Crimes triggered by internal, mental events
Usually little or no interest in a crime after it has been committed or the investigation of it
Domestic surroundings and person may be dishevelled and unkempt
APPLYING THESE CRITERIA TO THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS
N.B.
My comments in this section are confined to the "canonical" victims. To make the basis on which I am writing clear here are my very brief thoughts on other so called victims in this series:
1) EMMA SMITH: can be clearly discounted from her own evidence of a gang attack
2) MARTHA TABRAM: certain factors are tempting to include this as the first murder in the series but on balance I would discount it and, applying Occam's Razor, tend to the view that she was actually killed by the soldier with whom she went into George Yard buildings
3) ALICE MCKENZIE: a moderate possibility that this may be by the same hand as the canonical victims but the lengthy time period (8 months) between this and the Kelly killing militate against it.
4) FRANCES COLES: the serious doubt about the unproven guilt of Thomas Sadler leads me not to include it as well as the even lengthier time period involved
With regard to the inclusion of Elizabeth Stride among the acknowledged victims, I think there is a small but persistentt case for not including her but the unbelievable degree of synchronicity required to argue for two offenders to be at work on 30th September weighs strongly against this.
From the METHODS and PERSONALITY lists above it seems to me that the Whitechapel murderer would undoubtedly fall into the category of a disorganised killer. The main traits that lead me to this are:
METHODS:
High risk victims with resultant defensive wounds especially in the case of Kelly
Will take steps to render victims unconscious, cover faces or disfigure them
Will not attempt to obliterate evidence
Body will be left where killed
Depersonalisation of victim may result in attempts to obliterate face or post mortem mutilations
Will not take objects belonging to victim but rather body parts or clothing
Does not complete sex act
Killing will be "blitz" attack and carried out quickly
If we accept that the Whitechapel murderer was primarily a disorganised killer then it may cast some interesting light on other aspects of the case from the list of personality traits.
If the disorganised killer usually takes little or no interest in the crime once it is perpetrated and does not follow the investigation, as does the organised killer, then this casts serious doubt on the whole corpus of the correspondence and the likelihood of the killer contacting the police and other authorities to boast and threaten. That has much more the stamp of the organised killer.
The lack of "normal" logic in the selection of victims by disorganised killers argues strongly against all the "conspiracy" theories and those that follow a reasoned and ground line of logic in linking the victims. The psychology of the disorganised killer argues more strongly that if he were following a private agenda it would be based on a private and unfathomable "logic" that could not be interpreted by the application of rational criteria.
The lack of verbal skills and lack of interest in coercing or establishing contact with the victim as a person argues against may of the sightings when a victim was seen apparently interacting convivially with a suspect.
The lack of care about surroundings and personal appearance argue against the more dashing sightings such as that of George Hutchinson.
Speculative profile:
From the above we can infer the following speculative profile of the Whitechapel killer as a disorganised individual.
He would be a white male in the in the age range mid 20s to mid 30s. He would be living in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area and had probably done so for some time. If Mary Nichols was the first victim of the Whitechapel killer it is likely he would have lived or worked in close proximity to the Buck's Row area and he would either have been unemployed or been engaged in casual or menial, low status work. The motivating factor in his choice of victim was more likely to be the fact that they were women than the fact that they were prostitutes. His primary motives would have been both a fear and hatred of women and a morbid curiosity about the physiology and workings of the female body.
Modus Operandi: The Whitechapel killer would have walked to and from the sites of his killings and his victims would have been selected opportunistically. That is, he would have attacked the unfortunate woman who happened to be in his vicinity rather than stalking or seeking out a particular individual. This profile rules out the likelihood that the victims were targetted or that they were known to the killer. As the killer would have had no interest in the victim or an individual, he would have sought to silence and immobilise here as quickly as possible. This would most likely have taken the form of a "blitz" attack to throttle the victim to render here unconscious and hence soundless as quickly as possible. This would have been followed rapidly by the wound to the throat to ensure immobility and other wounds (abdomen, face etc.) Would have been post mortem. In this scenario, the victim became essentially an inanimate and depersonalised method for the killer to both express his hatred and fear of women and also to indulge his morbid fascination with their hidden and internal workings.
The victims would have been killed where found and no attempt would have been made to conceal the body. The body parts taken away would have been both in the nature of "trophies" and also for the killer to examine at his leisure. It is unlikely the killer would have removed other items such as jewellery and taken them away with him. The killer would not have had or attempted intercourse with the victim either pre or post mortem.
Psychological background: the killer would have come from a dysfunctional family with an absent or sporadically present father. He would have been subject as a child to harsh, even abusive discipline. There may have been a family background or serious illness or alcoholism. His education would have been rudimentary and he would have been a low achiever and inadequate even at that level. He would probably be of below average intelligence and his adult life would have been spent either unemployed or in low status labour. In the killer's childhood there may well have been instances of deliberate, experimental cruelty, possibly with animals and instances of arson may also have occurred. Minor burglaries and offences of voyeurism may have drawn the killer to the attention of the authorities and he may well have had a criminal record.
Self image: his self image would have been extremely low and feelings of inferiority would have dominated his psychology. He would appear to others to be quiet and withdrawn and would be socially inept.
Situation: he would have lived alone or with a single parent, probably a mother or older female relative.
Sexual psychology: he would have felt from an early age that women were different, forbidden and "dirty" and this would have led to his ambivalent feelings about females in that he would have had a fear of women and the sexual threat that they posed but also a compulsively strong curiosity about the "forbidden fruit" that he had learned to hate.
Trigger: there may well have been no outwardly discernible "trigger" event that prompted the start of these killings. The motive would have come from his own tormented mental processes.
Implications for known facts of the case:
Correspondence: in this scenario it is highly unlikely that any of the correspondence attributed to "Jack the Ripper" actually came from the killer.
Graffito: again in this scenario it is highly unlikely that the Goulston Street graffito can be attributed to the killer.
The Kelly killing: the last of the "canonical" victims, Mary Kelly, is pivotal to many theories and all manner of links have been attributed to this unfortunate woman and the killer. In the scenario of the Whitechapel murderer as disorganised killer, Kelly may have encountered the killer close by Miller's Court and invited him as a client to No 13 or he would have gained entry opportunistically as a burglar or voyeur. It is likely that he would have launched an immediate and devastating attack on Kelly - the defensive wounds were much more marked in this killing than in any other - and would have rendered her unconscious and have administered the wounds to the throat in his usual way. The ghastly extent of the mutilations in this case would not have meant that he was seeking out Kelly in particular for some personal vengeance, but that the unexpected opportunity to indulge his perverse curiosity to the full would have been too tempting to forego.
The murder weapon: as disorganised killers do not plan carefully their attacks and often improvise weapons from the murder environment, it is possible that the killer carried such as knife as was used about his person as part of his normal business. This is not part of an argument for medical knowledge which this scenario would tend to negate but rather that he may have been engaged in a line of work in which the carrying of a knife was acceptable or standard practice.
Physical characteristics: from the profile listings, the killer would probably have been either physically unattractive and may even have had some physical blemish or deformity. His lodgings/home and his care his own person would have been careless and his physical surroundings would disordered and chaotic.
Identification: this attempt to apply the principles of profiling does not, of course, allow us to identify the killer as a named individual. On a personal note, the nearest of the theories propounded so far would be the case of Aaron Cohen BUT that does not mean that I wholeheartedly accept Cohen as the "Ripper" - just that on the basis of this profile he is the type of individual we would be looking for.
I hope this has been of interest.
Chris Scott
Dec 2002 |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 04:57 pm | | Chris-
It's amazing how people can start with the same basic info and come up with completely different answers. I've seen the list before and while reading it, this time as well as previously, I kept thinking that Jack was obviously a highly organized killer.
Some of the points that are used to try to show disorganized killing just don't make sense. Hiding the body -- where in overcrowded Whitechapel could Jack have hid the bodies other than the semi-secluded areas he was already at? Trying to stage the crime scene -- wouldn't make sense, stage it to what, a robbery, the victims had no money. Not taking personal items -- what personal items would the victims even have, and how are we sure that some weren't taken?
The problem here is people look at these guidelines and then try to apply them without taking some very important considerations into account, most notably the conditions of the East End at the time. The list assumes that the killer can approach victims in private houses or secluded areas, had transportation, etc., which just don't fit for the environment.
Jack clearly used logic in selecting his victims, established control, targeted an area and type, displayed logic, adapted, learned and got better, etc. There is no evidence of a disorganized blitz attack, except perhaps for the person seen rushing Liz Stride, and the targets were the lowest risk ones in the area.
All of this leads me to believe that we have a strongly organized killer who liked to mutilate.
You also have to be careful how you toss phrases like "Occam's Razor" around. You used it to try to support the idea that Tabram was killed by a soldier in a one-time unrelated incident. My belief is that it would support the idea that most, if not all, of the knife victims around that time would have to be by the same hand. I don't necessarily believe that, as I use other evidence before coming to a conclusion. Occam's razor, like all razors, has to be used carefully.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
--------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: chris scott
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 05:41 pm | | Hi Dan
many thanks for the comments. I should have explained perhaps that this was a speculative exercise to see basically where using the precepts of profiling led me and thought these might be of some interest. However, to take some of your points and explain a little further:
1) Hiding the body: my interpretation of the onservations as published by Ressler et al was that the organised killer not only plans his killings to a sometimes obsessive degree (the imagined planning being part of the fantasy) but would also often incorporate into that planning possible means by which the killing process could be prolonged. The organised killer is much more likely to require the acquiescence and submission of his victim verbally as well as physically. In disorganised killers the intent is to silence and depersonalise the victim as quickly as possible. The Whitechapel killings strike me as much more in keeping with this scenario than an organised killer toying with and torturing his victim before inflicting death. There was not even a rudimentary attempt to secret the crime - for example in the yard at Hanbury Street there was no attempt to hide the body in the shed we are told was there which to me would have been "logical"
2)I cannot see any basis in the evidence for saying that the Whitechapel killer used logic in selecting his victims. If he killed in close proximity to where he lived and/or worked as is common with disorganised killers and went to and from the crime scenes on foot then he was not "targetting" an area, he was killing in "his" area. Similarly, his victims were not selected, they were the unfortunate ones who were closest to hand when his mental processes drove him to kill.
3) With regard to the Tabram killing, of course I recognise your right to come to a different conclusion but to say you use other evidence before coming to a conclusion - the implication being that I didn't - and the observation that I "toss around" phrases without thinking them through falls short of the well argued level of the rest of your reply. Don't assume that because someone comes to a different concusion to you that they not have gone into the case as thoroughly as you have.
But, honestly, thanks for your comments and I hope the original contribution was of interest
Regards
Chris Scott |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 07:00 pm | | Chris,
The logic in choosing victims was picking ones who would be alone and could be secluded. Based upon the timing between murders is also looks like the killer purposefully delayed attacks at times when it would have been difficult to escape. A disorganized killer tends to be more impulsive and probably wouldn't have been able to communicate effectively and convince the victims to go to a semi-private area.
I'm not assuming that you haven't thought things through, but your only listed explanation for dismissing Tabram as a ripper victim was simply to say "Occam's Razor." Don't take my criticism of that as an insult. I can't assume you have other reasons unless you state them.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
--------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 12:18 am | | Dan,
I don't think the Ripper chose victims that specifically would be alone and could be secluded. I think he chose prostitutes as victims because they were easy prey - in order for them to engage in a sex act with a john, they'd need to have a dark, secluded place to do it. They did the work for him - he didn't have to scout the positions out ahead of time.
And I don't think that he purposefully delayed his attacks at times when it would have been difficult to escape, either. Look at the double event. Under both hypthoeses - that Stride was a victim or that she wasn't - you've got him either a.) killing one victim, getting interrupted, running three blocks west and killing another OR you've got him killing a victim an hour after someone else killed one and the police are flooding the area. Not good timing, especially if he was planning in advance.
I really don't think the Ripper needed to be able to communicate effectively to lure the women away - I mean, he was paying them for sex. A couple of grunts, and you've got your point across. He didn't need to be a sven gali to get poor women who just want to make a few pence it cover their bed for the night into a dark alley - he was paying, and they were willing.
Personally, I discount Tabram mainly because of the style of attack...no throat cut, more vicious, with the multiple stab wounds being the mode of death. In the following cases, the mutilations were after the victim was already dead. Tabram's were part of killing her. There was just a complete lack of effiecency in the killing of Tabram that I don't think fits with the other Ripper victims. Granted, it could have been his first time, he was nervous and hadn't worked out the best way to kill yet. Again, just my supposition.
The difficulty we have with placing the Ripper in either the organized or disorganized categories is the overlap. John Douglas, who co-wrote the book Chris talks about, with Ann Burgess and Bob Ressler (which is sitting on my coffee table right now), categorized the Ripper as disorganized. I tend to agree, but you're also right that there was some significant planning that had to go into some of the murders, particularly the ones where he took a trophy. Throw in the flawless luck he had in evading the police and any other people, and he starts to look more and more organized.
It's a tough call...but seeing as how the whole idea of profiling is what got me hooked on the case in the first place, it's one I like to argue. 
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 12:50 am | | Brian,
You said: "I don't think the Ripper chose victims that specifically would be alone and could be secluded. I think he chose prostitutes as victims because they were easy prey."
I've read and reread that and I can't figure out how you think those two statements are different. That was my point exactly. Choosing prostitutes is a logical choice, as is letting them take you somewhere secluded instead of attacking immediately. A disorganized killer is less likely to do that than an organized one.
"Granted, it could have been his first time, he was nervous and hadn't worked out the best way to kill yet."
The act of working out the best way to kill is the act of an organized killer, not a disorganized one. The ripper victims were silenced then sliced, a disorganized killer is less likely to be able to pull that off, especially without much practice.
"John Douglas, who co-wrote the book Chris talks about, with Ann Burgess and Bob Ressler (which is sitting on my coffee table right now), categorized the Ripper as disorganized."
And I feel that he did so without fully taking all of the factors into consideration, most notably, the differences in the environment in East End in 1888 (severe overcrowding, poverty, and difficulty in transporting bodies without being seen) versus the wide open stomping grounds of the later serial killers they had studied.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
--------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: chris scott
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 10:47 am | | Actually the book I was referring to was co-written by Robert Ressler and Tom Shachtman and is titled "Whoever Fights Monsters"
Just to set the record straight:-) |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 02:48 pm | | Dan,
What I interpreted you as saying was that the Ripper planned out ahead of time where to kill his victims, and then lured them to those locations. I felt that he didn't do that at all - all he did was choose the victim based on whomever he saw first (or if he had a type, by that criteria), knowing that in order for them to do their jobs, they would have already found the perfect place for him to kill them. The places the prostitutes found for illicit sex were just as good for murder.
I think the argument I'm trying to make was a "chicken or egg" argument.
As for the "silenced then sliced" argument, I agree - that's why I don't think Tabram's murder can included. She wasn't silenced and sliced. She was blizted - massive injuries in minimal time. Not what the Ripper did in any of the other murders.
And Chris, I was talking about "Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives" which is the book that established profiling as a "legitimate" theory...it's a dry read, but very interesting.
B |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 05:56 pm | | "Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
---------------------------------------------------------------"
I consider the repetition of this message by Mr. Norder at the bottom of several of his recent posts a transparent attempt to curry the favor of Ally and Stephen, presumably for the purpose of later requesting them to take actions against posters he doesn't like as a favor to him. Mr. Norder has a record of making phoney claims of harrassment against posters, one of them being me. People reading and posting these boards should keep Mr. Norder's manipulative pettiness in mind.
This is, of course, by no means to imply that people should not make donations to this web site. It is a worthy cause.
David |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 06:21 pm | | David,
Thanks for the tip. <pause>
Anyone care to talk about profiling?
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 06:31 pm | | Brian,
So, do you think it's likely that Jack the Ripper could come up with the perfect silence then slice method on his first try? I'm not convinced Tabram was a ripper victim, but I think she would make sense as an early one, before the MO was fully formed.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
--------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 06:46 pm | | Dan,
It's a good point you make - he wouldn't have all of the sudden learned how to pull off a perfect mutilation murder without practice. But I think Ada Wilson is a more likely candidate for his practice victim (besides the probable pets or animals he'd practiced on before graduating to people) than Tabram. There's a significant difference between cutting a throat or blitz hacking someone to death.
Then again, perhaps Tabram was his first victim, and the thrill of the kill was enough - he didn't need to spend time with mutilation to get off.
B |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 08:48 pm | | | I think he was a mixed offender. He was not purely organized because of the reasons you have listed. But he did get away and he left precious few clues. He at least knew to take the knife with him. |
Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 08:49 pm | | | Here's a link for ya, Dave; http;//www.dunce.com........... Go there and stay...They give you a big pointed hat and your own chair. Sounds like a good deal to me.....go check it out. |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 10:18 pm | | The fact that he even had the knife with him in the first place shows preplanning, yet another organized trait...
There's nothing disorganized about Jack, except the assumption that all mutilation killers are disorganized.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
--------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 03:50 am | | Hi Brian (and anybody else interested),
somewhere in this forum is a profile I did on the Ripper, based on the facts of the case and my experience as a profiler. If you want to read it and restart a dead thread join the fun. It makes more sense than bashing our heads against Mrs. Cornwall's wall.
Yours
Philip |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 03:55 am | | 'There is no such thing as luck,it is either good judgement or bad judgement'.That is an old saying.It may also apply to good organization or bad organization.
There is nothing in the Whitechapel killings that suggests either bad judgement or bad organization,at least on the part of the killer.
One man against a multitude of law enforcement officers,and he succeeds,not once but several times.Where is the disorganization?.Where is the lack of judgement?.
He determined on a kind of victim,and a time when the advantage was his,and he did not leave one indication of who he was or why he was behaving so.
He kills indoors and he kills outdoors.He kills the young and the old.If this is the actions of a disorganized killer,we had better beware the really organized ones. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 06:37 am | | Hi All,
My gut instinct goes with more organised than disorganised. I tend to think Jack was upping his game each time, singing "The thrill has gone" very soon after each encounter, and wondering if he could recapture and improve on it next time, and how he could set about it.
But, playing devils advocate, all he really had to do was what countless other men were doing all the time, on a daily or weekly basis for years - get picked up by a prostitute, taken to a quiet spot where he would be alone with her for a few minutes to do whatever pleased him, then wander back whence he came – without ever getting caught in the act or found out later. What kind of indication would be left of any of those men's true identities? None whatsoever, whether the woman was alive or dead when the man left the scene. Such men did it indoors and they did it outdoors; with the young and the old.
And Jack only needed to get away with this on a tiny number of occasions by comparison. He had his knife, the ability to silence the women quickly, and managed to avoid being stopped and searched on the way home. Did he really need that much luck, whether he was organised, disorganised, or a profiler’s nightmare – a mixture of both?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Lisa Jane Turner
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 08:45 am | | | Would the knowledge / activity regarding Stride's murder have reached Mitre Square at the time of Eddowes murder? |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 09:27 am | | Hi Caz,
Question: Do you really think he was "picked up by the whores"?
Yours,
Philip |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 11:38 am | | Guys,
I agree that he does display many of the traits of the organized killer, but don't overestimate his abilities.
Jack didn't have to do much work - all he needed to do was bring a knife, and a box for his trophy, and then find a prostitute.
Once he had found his victim, THEY did all of the work...they found the dark spot. They would have known areas to take their Johns that weren't patrolled by Police, that weren't frequented by lots of people, that would have been perfect for a 5-10 tryst for a few pennies, and that would have afforded them an easy way to run away if the cops showed up, or the John got abusive.
So the only planning he had to do was how to kill them, how to keep his trophy and how to get away without arousing suspicion (blood on clothes, etc.)
We're not talking the level of planning of a seriously organized killer like Jeffrey Dahmer or Ed Kemper. There was no attempt to throw off the police by moving the bodies, there was no kidnapping, removal to another place, torture, etc. It was a straight find a victim, kill 'em, cut 'em, and go. Most organized offenders that I've read about are organized because they want to take their time and enjoy the thrill of their kills. Jack didn't have that luxury.
Had he been more organized - enough to remove his victims to a secure location he had found himself earlier - more of the scenes would have resembled Miller's Court - the first time one of the women he picked up had her own room and he had all time he wanted to enjoy himself.
B |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 01:06 pm | | Forensic evidence shows that Martha Tabram was a Ripper victim.
Tabram received a blow to the head and then 39 stab wounds. Though the wounds appear to be grouped, they are spread across her body. This is over kill. Two classic signs of a sexual homicide are over kill and knife wounds spread across the body.
Tabram was killed in a relative secluded area. Her dress was raised to the center of her abdomen and a lone slash was found in her lower abdomen. Her body was displayed in almost the exact position as Polly Nichols who also received a blow to the head.
The lack of blood in the area tells us the first knife wound to Tabram was the wound to the heart. Her clinched fist are a sign of instant death. The killer used one weapon and all wounds were made by the same weapon.
The lone soldier spied by PC Barrett was not the killer. No money was found on Tabram’s person. The killer did not help himself to the money because Tabram did not have any on her due to her drinking habit. She needed money for bed or food and solicited a client, who happened to be the Whitechapel Killer. If the killer took any money from Tabram, then it was the money he used to pay her services.
Tabram’s actual time of death is 3:20 to 3:25 am.
As the killings progress we see a pattern emerging and the killer becomes more organized.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: chris scott
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 01:25 pm | | In view of some comments about my expressing doubts about Tabram as a victim of the Whitechapel killer, I have decided to expand my reasons for this, as below:
Martha Tabram
Reason for doubting she was a victim of the Whitechapel killer
There has been much debate about whether Martha Tabram, whose body was found in George Yard Buildings on 7 August 1888, was the first - or at least an early - victim of the Whitechapel killer.
The following factors, in my opinion, militate against the classification of Tabram as a victim of the same hand as that which dispatched the later, "canonical" victims.
Modus Operandi: I have seen arguments that the Tabram killing represented an "immature" or "tentative" phase of the Whitechapel killer's development and his killing technique. However Dr Killen in his inquest testimony listed the following injuries:
5 to the left lung
2 to the right lung
1 to the heart
5 to the liver
2 to the spleen
6 to the stomach
1 to the sternum
Significantly, in this inquest testimony there is no mention of any wounds to the throat. In so far as the Whitechapel killer had a "trademark" in the later 5 killings, it would, in my opinion, have been the inflicting of devastating wounds to the throat to render the victim immediately lifeless and allow the subequent, post mortem mutilations and other injuries. Dr Killen opined that all the injuries on Tabram were inflicted while she was alive and again this differs significantly and fundamentally from the method of the Whitechapel killer.
The murder weapon or weapons in the Tabram case were identified by Dr Killeen as a small knife like a pen knife and a dagger/bayonet type weapon. Again, this differs significantly from the single weapon of the Whitchapel killer, most commonly identified as a single-edged, pointed blade at leat 6-8" in length.
Any "progression" of the Whitchapel killer's technique seems to me more one of degree than one of kind. The fundamental M.O. remained at least partial throttling followed by fatal wounds to the throat and then the post mortem mutialtions and other injuries.
Sightings: witht the exception of Mary Nichols, all the "canonical" victims were the subject of suppsed sightings with men within a reasonably short time of the murder. In my opinion, the most lilely of these sightings to have been of the killer and his victim was the supposed sighting of Eddowes and a man by Lawende, Harris and Levy but even in this sighting only one of the witnesses (Lawende) was able to offer a positive identification of the victim and that was on the basis of here clothing. My point is that in all cases of the canonical victims being sighted in the company of a male companion near the time of location of the murders, none of them is unequivocal or without problems of identification.
In the case of Tabram we must deal with the thorny problem of the evidence of Mary Connolly and her subsequent prevarications with the police. However, the problems with Connolly's conduct and availability to the police arose after her initial inquest testimony and there were other sightings of Tabram in the company of a soldier during the evening of 6th August. There is also the crucial evidence of PC Barrett who spoke to a young Guardsman waiting at the end of George Yard buildings for "a chum who had gone off with a girl". One can read many motives into the later shennanigans of Connolly and here conduct but the weight of evidence surely implies that tabram was in the extended company of a soldier throughout the evening and until at least 2am when PC Barrett interviewed his "chum." This set of circumstances seems to me a far more consistent and credible scenario for the likely background to the killing then those associated with the canonical victims e.g. Hutchinson's sighting prior to the Kelly killing, the supposed sighting of Chapman by Mrs Darrell (or whatever name you choose to give her!)
Conclusion: from the above reasons. I am NOT saying that Martha Tabram cannot be identified as a victim of the Whitechapel. My case was, and remains, that there are serious reasons for doubting that identification and any inclusion of Tabaram in a line of reasoning regarding the Whitechapel killings must be treated with caution.
CS |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 02:02 pm | | "5 to the left lung
2 to the right lung
1 to the heart
5 to the liver
2 to the spleen
6 to the stomach
1 to the sternum"
This is an interesting post by Chris Scott above. Please study it carefully. I've always been fascinated by this listing.
It looks to me that the person who killed Tabram was somehow attempting to stab specific internal structures--internal organs in all cases except the sternum, which is an internal cartilage. In effect, each time he raised his knife, he pictured not the clothing of the victim he was stabbing through, and not the outer integument he was stabbing through, but rather the inner structure he was ultimately stabbing. It appears he had a fantasy of stabbing certain specific inner structures in a certain way, for a certain purpose known to him as he did it. If you chart out these wounds on the body, you will find that they are not spread evenly over the chest and abdomen, neither are they spread in a pattern comparable to outer integumental structures such as the breasts, but instead comprise various clusters, and underneath each cluster is the internal structure apparently targeted.
Therefore a tentative conclusion can be founded: The person(s) who murdered Tabram were fantasizing in some kind of quasi-surgical, quasi-medical manner. While the "surgeon" didn't attempt to cut into the body to access these structures as a surgeon would, nonetheless he did access them.
David |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 03:55 pm | | Stab wounds to the heart account for approximately sixty three percent of stab wounds to the chest. Twenty five percent of stab wounds to the chest, that involve the heart are fatal. Puncturing of the sternum usually leads to instant death, for two reasons, the Vagus Nerve lies on the heart. Among other things, the Vagus controls the heart and to sever the nerve means to stop the heart. The Vagus is more accessible in the left side of the neck, where it lies between the Carotid Artery and the Jugular Vein. The more likely cause of death, from penetration of the sternum, is the puncture of the Aorta Arch. The puncture of the Arch is the cause of death usually seen in stab wounds that penetrate the sternum. If the wound to the heart is massive then the victim collapses in seconds and the blood usually rushes inside the heart’s chambers. Due to muscle contraction, wounds to the left ventricle may seal off and death becomes slow. However; wounds to the right ventricle results in death within seconds.
Stab wounds ot the throat comprise 10% of all stab wounds. The key word here is stab. These wounds are not always fatal as they usually do not sever the Carotid Arteries and Jugular Veins. In stab wounds to these two vital areas, an air lock usually forms and slows down if not completely stop blood flow. In cases where the blood flow completely stops, the victim will become unconscious with death coming slowly. In cases where the blood flow is merely inhibited, the victim becomes lethargic but still has their mental faculties.
Stab wounds to the abdomen can be fatal. Stab wounds to the abdomen account for approximately one third of all stab wounds. Stab wounds to the liver, kidney, stomach and spleen can cause major bleeding, especially internally. Death from these wounds is usually slow and painful and the victims may be capable of vigorous activity, even in documented cases where the intestines have been protruding from the wound. There are many documented cases of soldiers in combat placing their intestines back inside their body while waiting on medics.
If I remember right the Times account of the inquest states that Killeen listed 9 wounds to the throat. I will have to check my sources, and I do not have them with me at the moment.
The wounds to Martha Tabram could not have been inflicted anti-mortem, as there was no blood found at the scene. This is an indication that the blood flow had stopped and the body was lying down on her back, thus the blood remained inside the body. Once she was moved blood may have very well seeped out of the wounds as blood loses its ability to coagulate at the time of death. The only exception to this is instant deaths, where blood can retain its ability to coagulate for up to 30 minutes post- mortem.
It is highly unlikely that two separate weapons were used on Martha Tabram. In fact it so unlikely that it is more likely to presume that Tabram simply fell down on a knife 39 times. An explanation of this requires another post and if anyone is interested, I can post this later today.
The lone soldier can be excluded because the time of death by Dr. Killeen is off by an hour.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 07:10 pm | | Scott,
I'd wondered if you were going to jump in on this one. Glad to see you here. How's the book going?
Brian,
OK, you are assuming that Jack wasn't organized because he didn't take the victims to a more secure location. So, let's think about this... where oh where in the East End do you think would have been more secure? Remember we are talking about an area with rampant overcrowding the likes of which most of us have never seen, let alone experienced.
As poor college students a group of friends and myself once rented a run-down house. There was one room probably 8 feet by 10 feet that was basically like a large closet, with no electrical outlets. We used it for storage and the cat litter box. This very same type of room in Whitechapel would most likely house several people and any animals they were raising for food.
If Jack were a Whitechapel resident (or sailor, poor visitor, etc.), it's not likely that he could find and afford a private location on his own. And, if he did, do you think it's likely that street prostitutes would have gone back to it with him and allowed themselves to be so cut off from escape? Even normal customers were known to try to rob and assault them, let alone the risk with Jack the Ripper running about.
Jack got the victims to a secluded place, and, most likely, just let them choose the location so they felt more secure themselves. I think this is more an organized trait than a disorganized one. A disorganized killer is more likely to be violent with witnesses around, much like we have been led to believe happened prior to the Liz Stride killing (which is an indication to me that either that wasn't a ripper case or our information about the event is all screwed up somehow).
Dan |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 08:15 pm | | --->ORGANISED KILLER:
--->
--->Exhibits evidence of planning the crime
Yes. Jack brought his own knife, only killed on certain nights, delayed later killings, etc.
--->Victim will be targetted stranger e.g. killer will target a certain area or pursue a certain physical type
Yes. Targeted prostitutes in East End.
--->Will use ruse to gain control over victim
Yes. Most likely posed as client. Went to a secluded spot.
--->Has good verbal skills
Unknowable, but presumably enough so that he didn't act like a freak and scare off prostitutes.
--->Has high degree of intelligence
Unknowable, but enough to pick a very reliable form of killing people silently.
--->Victims are personalised and recognised as individuals before killing them
Before killing? Unknowable. Afterwards some show signs of depersonalization, though in a mutilation killer assuming depersonalization was the goal of facial mutilations could be misguided.
--->Logic displayed in every aspect of the crime
Very true.
--->Will adapt his behaviour to the demands of the situation
True. Methods changed, locations changed, etc.
--->Will learn as he goes and get better at what he does
Textbook example. There are clear advancements in the mutilations.
--->First victim will most likely be closest to where killer lives or works
Unknown. Though Tabram was in center of affected area, and apron from Eddowes was dropped in a location suggesting that killer was headed toward the location of Tabram's death or (with more walking) Nichols'.
--->First crime may not be thoroughly planned
We'd have to know which was first to know this. This could be true for Tabram's death or the attacks on Millwood or Wilson.
--->Frequent use of restraints which killer will carry with him
None necessary for this crime. It would be a waste of time, except perhaps for MJK, assuming Jack wanted to keep her conscious and aware and had additional use of a gag.
--->Will use own transport or even victim's transport
Assumes a modern setting where transportation is available and useful.
--->Will make conscious efforts to obliterate evidence of the crime
Not that there'd even be much evidence for these kind of crimes. There's no reason to try to erase fingerprints or avoid giving DNA samples if the police can't test any of it.
--->Victims usually nude
Well, certainly exposed in this case. Total nudity wouldn't be practical except for MJK, who was.
--->Body will be moved and attempt made to hide it
Hide it where? They were already somewhat secluded as far as seclusion is even possible in that area. A smart killer in Whitechapel knows that taking the time to try to move it someplace just means more time to be spotted with the body. This criteria assumes a modern society where privacy and transportation of the body are even possible.
--->Crime scene may be "staged" to mislead authorities
Well, I don't think you *can* stage a mutilation murder to appear to be, say, a robbery gone wrong... though the victims were robbed. The Wilson attack was supposedly a robbery. The Goulston Graffiti may have been an attempt to mislead the police. It's hard to say how Jack could have mislead the police more than what they were naturally as a result of having poor forensics knowledge and no understanding of serial killer psychology.
--->May take personal items belonging to victim
May have happened. Victims pockets were gone through, but then they probably didn't have much in the way of personal items on them.
--->Will often complete sexual act with living victim
Assuming that's part of the killer's goals, or that there is time. I'm not sure, but once he had privacy (with MJK) he may have actually had sex with her. Hard to say. Mutilation targets may show that sex was not something he was capable of.
--->Act of killing may be protracted with rape, torture etc to increase sense of control over victim's life
This assumes there's time, and that the noise wouldn't attract attention. Might have happened with MJK.
--->Will keep track of the investigation to heighten and prolong the fantasy
Unknown. If (a big if) the Lusk letter was not a hoax, this would imply that he had been following along.
The list of traits of a disorganized killer are largely just opposites of all of these, so I will summarize:
The first two criteria don't fit. Depersonalization was covered above. Fourth is false. Fifth is false because Jack carried a knife and didn't just use a rock or some improvised weapon. Sixth (transportation) is irrelevant to the time and place. Seventh is unknown. Eighth and ninth criteria (no attempt to move body or stage scene) were covered above. Tenth is another point about depersonalization and mutilations, already covered. Eleventh is taking of body parts or clothing, which is true. Twelfth is no sex act (already covered) and last is blitz attack.
Regarding blitzing, Jack waited for the perfect time and did not attack with witnesses around and so forth. And certainly you can't fault Jack for going fast when there was such a risk of discovery. If you have to go fast, going fast isn't disorganized. Blitzing to me implies rushing in, attacking, running off. I don't think strangulation and slicing is really a blitz. Nichols and Stride had blitz-like elements, but the other canonical victims had too many careful mutilations after to use the term blitz.
So, again, other than the assuption that killers who mutilate or take body parts have to be disorganized and the criteria that don't fit for the East End of London in 1888, there is basically nothing to support the idea of a disorganized killer. Cutbush stabbing people in the ass in front of witnesses is disorganized, Jack silently killing and slicing up females is organized.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
--------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Stuart
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 04:17 am | | I must admit that even with my admittedly poor knowledge, newness to the case, and the fact that I'm only a second-hand info gatherer...I think Jack was very organised.
Even the most obvious fact pointing this out may get overlooked by some...He never got caught in a city swarming with cops, and a frenzied populace.
That was what struck me about the whole saga when I delved in 2 months ago, after years of casual reading.
I thought that, for example, when he did Bucks Row, he must have hid around for a while just watching. Cleaned up a bit. Then moved east back home (my theory that bit). He didn't run aimlessly through the streets. He knew where to go, not go, hide, walk safely...and it worked.
Very organised. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 06:04 am | | In my opinion, he was organised. He carried his knife,--not just any knife,-- a special knife, a Liston amputating knife judging from what the police surgeons said .
He was never heard,-- (Mitre Square), He was never seen,-- not that anyone can prove, 100%, and his killings were "DISPLAY" killings, he couldn't possibly have left the bodies in a better place.
The only BETTER place would have been Whitechapel High Street,or Commercial Street, and I believe he would have done that if he could!.
To my way of thinking the killings took such a short time to commit that the only real pleasure he was going to get from them was public reaction.
The only murder that was not in line was Kelly's killing, I don't think that was planned to happen,if it had been a planned Ripper murder, the door would have been left wide open, and the killing would have been discovered way before 10:45----it would have been another DISPLAY murder.
Rick |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 06:25 am | | Hi Philip,
Do I really think Jack was "picked up by the whores"? Well, it's a pity he was never picked up by the Fuzz.
Seriously though, all he had to do was be out on the streets, looking like he might be good for a few pence, then wait for one of these women, desperate for gin or doss money, to approach him and beg, or offer sexual services. So, in effect, they could have done all the work. I'm not saying this is how I think each encounter began - just that it could have happened that way.
Hi Stuart,
'He never got caught in a city swarming with cops, and a frenzied populace.'
And presumably a large number of men having normal encounters with prostitutes at the time never got caught either, despite all the cops and the frenzied populace on the lookout for any man who might have been doing dodgy things with women on the streets. I wonder what proportion of these men were seen, stopped and questioned, or identified?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stuart
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 10:25 am | | Hi Caz.
I've always wondered how many men were stopped (and who !!) on the nights of the murders.
That's why he was organised (clever?) in eluding them it seems. He may have been stopped just after, but I doubt that to be honest. He would be that hyped up that he'd probably give himself away.
Unless he was the coolest customer ever. And I don't think anyone could be so cool, that minutes after slashing someone to death, they are Mr Calm and collected.
He was a master skulker, hider and eluder. Dodging into alleys. Hiding in boltholes. |
Author: Vila
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 10:44 am | | Hello,
Here is a thought that came to me while reading the above posts: I wonder if Jack met other hookers in less than ideal conditions such that he had to pass up the chance to kill them? In other words, was he a semi-regular patron of prostitutes in the area anyway and only killed when he felt assured of a flawless getaway? (or alternately, when he most felt the need to kill)
Admittedly, this is entirely speculation. I see no way to test the idea. And its only value would be if there were surviving records of police interviews of the area streetwalkers that could be used as a database.
Perhaps I should have refrained from posting it, but for the sake of completeness, I did. Others, wiser than I, may see something useful in the speculation.
Vila |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 11:48 am | | Hi Stuart, Vila,
I too doubt Jack was ever stopped while he was making his getaway after each attack. But if the majority of men who used the services of a street woman managed the whole process from start to finish without ever being stopped, would it be all that surprising if Jack got away with it too, on the small number of occasions he attacked? He only had to act as calmly as any genuine paying customer who, just like him, didn't want anyone else to know what he had just been up to. Once at a safe distance in time and space, with no forensics to ever tie him to the crime scene, he was home and dry.
This is all speculation of course, as you say Vila. It's very possible that Jack passed up the chance to kill other hookers in less than ideal conditions. But that could apply to those normal paying customers too - I bet a few of them got cold feet on occasion! And that tells us nothing about whether Jack was ever one of them, or a man who routinely only pretended to be interested in what the women were offering.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 11:50 am | | Guys,
We're screwing up the definitions of "organized" and "disorganized". When I get home, I'll get the facts straight from "Sexual Homicide, Patterns and Motives" which set out the differnce, but here's a quick crib from something I found on criminalprofiling.com:
"These differentiations are not far off of the FBI's organized/disorganized classification scheme. In this scheme, laid out by the Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI (1985), killers are classified as disorganized when there is little evidence of extensive pre-crime planning, including such things as using a weapon of opportunity at the scene, and picking a victim at semi-random. Disorganized killers tend to be far more violent than their counterparts, and also seem to kill for the process of the killing, rather than the end result (FBI, 1985). Organized killers, on the other hand, are just that. They tend to plan out the crimes in great deal, perhaps stalking the victims for weeks on end, bringing their own weapons, and having elaborate disposal schemes for the body (FBI, 1985). Just like the act-focused murderer, the organized offender kills quickly and efficiently, and does not mutilate as often as the disorganized offender (FBI, 1985). For all intents and purposes, the process-focused murderer is equivalent to the disorganized offender and the act-focused killer is the same as the organized offender. Thus the FBI's (1985) terminology will be used over that of Holmes and De Burger (1988)."
Jack was extremely violent, performed many mutilations, did not stalk his victims extensively (or at least there is no evidence of it), and killed for the killing.
Keep in mind that the definition of "organized" doesn't mean "pre-planned".
B |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 12:08 pm | | Vila,
I have pondered that samw question. At this point in time, I have no answer.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 12:09 pm | | Hi,
Been away, dont know why...back now...cut the groans !
My tuppence worth.
Why does the murderer have to fit into one or the other ?? Surely thats a mistake.
Cant he have been both ??
Its seems to me that Im in agreement with Scott.
I can see an evolution in MO taking place as the murders move from one to the other.
Am I wrong in thinking that an organized killer has to have total control of the victim and the killing enviroment ??
He would want to spend time with his victims, tease and torture, enjoy every moment, get personal. I cannot see how he could of at any of the sites apart from Kellys room. So he wasnt that organised was he ?
I cannot see the connection with the knife Dan. Half the people (or more) in the area carried one. They are mentioned in a few news and police reports. I know (and Im sure you do) of disorganised killers who use the knife. Its something that they have always carried as protection or whatever. That dont add up for me. Sorry.
I just feel that putting him in either one or the other box when he seems to belong in neither is a mistake.
Ive always seen Jack as bright. Organised to a degree yet some of his traits are strictly disorganised.
He is what he is.
Best wishes
Monty
PS Vila. Excellent point. Ive wondered that too. There must have been.
Ive often wondered of the ones that got away....I cant believe he has a 100% success rate. |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 05:53 pm | | Brian,
We are not screwing up the definitions, we're going directly from the list describing the difference. Even when you try to relist the factors involved, you are picking and choosing to come up with disorganized.
Jack planned, had ultimate control, brought an impressive weapon, was fast and efficient, killed silently, and had control enough to get away. All of these are features of an organized killer.
You assume again the mutilation automatically means organized, while the text you quoted doesn't say that. You also assume that he didn't pick out victims or areas ahead of time. I find it unlikely that the neatness with MJK could have been a happy accident, for example. If he had the key, which people are still divided on, that took a tremendous amount of planning.
The only way you can get disorganized out of this is to concentrate solely on the mutilations, ignore the rest of the criteria, and make wild assumptions about the ones we have no idea about.
I tend to think Jack must have passed on killing when he thought it was too risky. Odds are that every prostitute he approached wouldn't have brought him to a suitably secure location on their own. It's unlikely that we can chalk (heh) his success rate up to a disorganized brain muddling through and having extreme amounts of luck. Luck can probably get you through a couple of killings and mutilations in a place that's overcrowded, crawling with police, and where denizens are practically lynching any oddball who makes a semi-threatening action. Luck doesn't get you 4 or 5 or more.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
--------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 10:01 pm | | "I wonder if Jack met other hookers in less than ideal conditions such that he had to pass up the chance to kill them?"
How would we ever know? What is the purpose of thinking this thought? If a tree falls in the forest...
David |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 10:15 pm | | | Dave....Remember the next time you go whining about why some folks poke fun at you,that the above reply to a simple question by a poster is the reason. Its a good question,as judged by the caliber of folks above who have thought about it likewise. Hey,if a tree fell on an accountant in the middle of the forest,who would care? Vila: your post was food for thought. Howard |
Author: Stuart
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 04:33 am | | My thoughts again (shut up Stu!!)
Organised may not exactly mean Pre-planned, but it's a nearer match than Disorganised.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I equally wouldn't like us all here to get hung up on the exact specific definitions of a word applied to a killer such as Jack.
Seems to me that he was organised (for reasons outlined here), he pre-planned too 'cos he went out with a knife to kill. That much says so.
To me (humble newby) Disorganised would mean roaming streets and killing anyone he met with anything to hand at any time. This didn't happen else he would have killed bank managers with rocks, pub landlords with guns.
There are probably traits of disorganisation in Jacks methods, but overall...I dunno. I'm rambling now, and I can never get what I want to say down on "paper" as easy as it tumbles out my mouth.
*shuts up, goes back to work*
cheers
Stu |
|
|
|
|
