|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 03 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Why Did He Suddenly Stop?:
Archive through 03 January 2003
Author: Diana
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 08:42 pm |        | | This question has been discussed before but I have thought of a new possible answer. Jack's killing schedule indicates that he held down a job. It was pointed out on another thread that if Jack were at the very bottom of the economic heap he would have concentrated on getting food and a bed and wouldn't have had any money to be hiring prostitutes. It is a fair assumption that as time went on he was probably deteriorating mentally. Is it possible that some time after Kelly he got so erratic that he got fired? Without money he couldn't lure anyone into a dark alley anymore. |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 09:50 pm | | Well, first up I think the whole deterioration of his mind is not at all proven or a good assumption. One only has to look at other serial killer cases to see that they usually continue on at their normal mental functioning for decades with no evidence that they'd ever get any worse than they were already.
Be that as it may, sure, it's possible he could have run out of money for one reason or another. Day to day existence in Whitechapel was never a sure thing.
I do think though that Jack would have then tried some other violent acts if he didn't have money to hire women to get them to go someplace private. Maybe slash and dash on women as they walked alone in a semi-secluded area, or trying to lure them someplace under some other pretense.
While I think serial killers can stop, I think that simple lack of money wouldn't be a suitable enough reason for a complete stop in activity. Perhaps lack of money plus not enjoying activities without the possibility for mutilation, or having a greater fear of capture, or something else like that.
But, yeah, sudden lack of funds at the very least would have forced Jack to change his MO.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Ky
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 10:25 pm | | I'm wondering about the idea of JtR not having the cash to hire a prostitute to take him somewhere private. In that era was the 'customer' expected to flash his cash in the open? Or would they have gone somewhere 'private' to negotiate the deal? Couldn't JtR have just lied about having money to get her to go off with him?
Ky |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 10:36 pm | | People are now making arguments along the lines of "JtR stopped killing because his foot got caught behind a loose bolt on London Bridge" or "...because he fell into a vat of sauerkraut being fermented in the German section of town."
Anybody can make arguments like this, it doesn't take any talent at all. The talent comes in when you try to stick with the real case evidence.
David |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 12:02 am | | Whether a serial killer can stop or not is certainly tied to the question of 'need'.
In other words, if the 'urge' still exists the killings will go on, if the urge is no longer there then the need to kill also diminishes, he stops, either temporarily or permanently.
If the killer lost the ability to bait them with coins then he would find some other means to lure them, a change in tactics, but the killings would continue.
The question "why did he suddenly stop?" is directly tied to the motive, and in this case there is no known motive.
Self gratification?
Profit?
Ritual?
Pick a motive and you are half-way to solving "why he stopped". But then thats a subjective perspective with no factual support.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 12:38 am | | Davey,
Be good. You'll scare off the newbies.
Diana,
I agree with Dan - I don't think it very likely that he was "deterorating mentally". I'll save the profiling psychobabble, and just point out that the only crime scene indoors, where Jacky had significant amounts of time without fear of being caught, was with MJK.
As to the age old question of why he stopped, it's really anybodies guess - which is obvious. Some of the reasons I've come up with include:
1.) Dies randomly, like in a work accident - these were common in Whitechapel during the time period.
2.) Moves out of the area - such as a medical student graduating and going to a new assignment (see a pattern forming here?).
3.) Is arrested for some other crime.
4.) Is committed to an asylum.
Reasons I would rule out:
1.) Got bored with it - while what Dan points out about some serial killers stopping is true, it's not very common, and in a time period where people did not have ready access to psychological services, I don't think it happened here
2.) Killed himself - Another serial killer rarity. Some have committed "suicide by cop", but most of them feed off of attention and their egos would prohibit them from just ending it all. Even some of the killers who have litter their crime scenes with "help me, I can't stop" type messages, they were craving the attention, not actual help.
Think about it this way - as each of us grew up, we learned what it was like to enjoy sex with members of the opposite sex (or same sex, for those who are gay). For me, seeing an attractive woman turns me on. I have fantasies about Audrey Hepburn. Serial killers don't think that way - they rarely have healthy sexual relationships with the opposite sex (or the same sex). Their idea of what "sex" is was corrupted somewhere down the line - by a domineering parental figure, molestation by a relative or neighbor, or many other reasons. For them fantasies of rape and murder are the same as my fantasy of Audrey Hepburn - something that turns them on. They see nothing wrong with it.
The easiest way to put yourself in the shoes of s sexual serial killer is to imagine that the entire world thinks that whatever your sexual preference is is wrong. Not just wrong, but sick and taboo and you must be screwed up to feel that way. That's what the world is like to them - it's similar to pedophiles and other paraphiliacs. They just aren't wired right.
Imagine how hard it would be to for me to simply stop getting turned on by Audrey Hepburn. Or for you to quit getting turned on by your significant other. It's next to impossible. The ideas are burned into your brain. That's Jack's problem.
So, in my humble opinion, there must be some logical explanation as to why he stopped. It's just out there for one of us to find. 
Long rambling posts are what happen when you've got a week off.
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:37 am | | As long as we are coming up with possible reasons:
5.) Changed MO so we only thought he stopped. (Perhaps he found a way to dispose of bodies, or switched to only slicing necks open.)
6.) Fear of getting caught, perhaps because of a near-miss with law enforcement. (Just because you have a desire doesn't mean you have to act on it. Brian's arguments that you don;t just stop being attracted to something are true and all, but don't necessarily translate into having to follow them at all costs.)
7.) Long term illness.
8.) Found another outlet for the paraphilia. (If the guy just loved playing with innards and only killed to get them, maybe he landed a job at a morgue and was paid to play.)
9.) Found a more meaningful sexual outlet. (This is controversial and will probably get me yelled at, but some people do participate in deviant sex acts because they can't get what they really want. If they are no longer frustrated there's less reason to act out highly risky sexual behavior.)
And I would add to #2 the possibility that he was a sailor and was only in Whitechapel in the first place when the boats docked (which also appear to coincide with the times of the killings).
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: John William Whitaker
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 02:40 am | | Hi Brian,
I'm not trying tom be hard to get along with, but, could you tell me witch serial killers have stopped on their own or committed suicide? That has been one of my main lines of research, and the only reason for stopping that I have found is capture or death. Thanks, John. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 04:52 am | | John,
Well, of the ones I can think of off of the top of my head, the Zodiac would be one. He just sort of stopped around 1970. The "Capital City" or "Mad City" murders in Wisconsin started in 68 and ended in 84, and we don't know why. The Green River killings stopped in 89, and we don't know why, although they got a good suspect now. The "BTK" killer started in 78, ended the same year, and we don't know why. There are actually quite a few - granted we don't know WHY they stopped, but not all of them could have died randomly.
As for actual suicide, I don't recall any at all. I think I said "suicide by cop", but that's more along the lines of spree killers or mass murderers, like Charles Whitman. It almost never happens. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.
B |
Author: Philip Rayner
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 09:42 am | | Slightly off topic but, I feel, relevant. Most Ripperologists seek to find the identity of the Ripper. Yet if it ever conclusively proved that X was the Ripper the raison d'etre for this site and every other forum, book and film would be gone.
Similarly, I came across a forum regarding the anatomical skill of the killer and this one regarding the reason he stopped. These too are tied in with his identity in that if a definitive answer is found debate becomes obsolete. I think that we really don't want the answers. It's too much fun plying your pet theory.
Let's hope our children are rehashing these arguments in a few years. |
Author: chris scott
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:45 pm | | Re John Whitaker's message:
"and the only reason for stopping that I have found is capture or death."
Hi John
I have seen this line of reasoning before and the usual list for the Whitechapel murders ceasing is somwhere along these lines:
1) he committed suicide
2) he was killed by design or accident and his link to the killings never became apparent
3) he was committed to prison form some other offence
4) he was committed to an asylum
5) he emigrated
One possibility that I have seldom (if ever) seen mentioned is that he was incapacitated by accident or disease to usch an extent that he became physically incapable of committing further murders.
Any comments on this would be most welcome
Chris scott |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:54 pm | | | Some years ago we had quite a discussion about the fact that mucking around inside dead bodies is not the healthiest thing to do. Who knows what diseases the vics were carrying? And if he nicked himself and fecal matter got in the nick . . . |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:55 pm | | Brian Schoeneman: Audrey Hepburn.
David Radka: Marilyn Monroe.
Dan Norder: An empty dresser drawer, a live duck and Che Guevara. |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 02:38 pm | | In response to the 5 'typical' reasons for the murders ceasing (by Chris Scott), I suggest.....
5) emigrated.
This would not end the crimes, just move the location, and as no 'similar' crimes are known anywhere else in the world (to date), I think this is unlikely.
3) imprisoned.
Possibly, but unless he was hanged for some other offence then we would need to look for a resumption of the crimes following an interval of months or years. Assuming he was not imprisoned for life. Then there's another aspect, would the real "Jack the Ripper" be able to keep quiet about the most terrifying series of murders ever committed?.
Are there any rumors about Jack being incarcerated anywhere?, none that I know of. I dont imagine the real JtR being able to sit on that kind of story for the rest of his life in a prison. I think this is unlikely.
1) Suicide.
Possibly, but do we have any examples to go on?
From what I understand suicide is not a trait of a serial killer. Suicide is really only considered because of the (wrongfull?) accusations against Druitt and has nothing else to support it.
2) Accidental death.
Reasonable, and I imagine this would include a serviceman killed in the line of duty.
A meritable option.
4) Committed.
Yes, there are rumors about the Ripper being committed to an Asylum.
A Possibility.
Both 2 & 4, purely in my opinion, are the most creditable options. But then, this list presumes the motive was sexual gratification. If it was not then we need a longer list.
Restricting our imagination is sometimes counterproductive.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 02:51 pm | | Jon,
Actually, there are crimes in other countries that could be considered similar that happened later. The Carrie Brown murder in New Jersey is quite similar, and there are rumored killings in many ports for which the research is on going. Ruling this one out so quickly is a huge mistake.
And using imagination to come up with other possible motives, like trying to sell off the organs, trying to silence the wtinesses of something (took him long enough to kill them all, must not have been too important), some supposed occult ceremony, etc. makes nice fiction but isn't something that works in crime investigations.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Scott Nelson
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 02:54 pm | | found religion/God told him to stop
Just got bored with it
It got too scary |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 04:30 pm | | Dan
I read all those crimes in Jamaica & America which are touted as being similar and I find that the word 'similar' is too loosely applied.
The fact a knife was used, or the victims were randomly stabbed is often regarded by some proponants of the "emigrated" theory as similar enough.
"Similar" to me is this.......
Consensus allows us to accept with a high degree of certainty that at least 3 victims fell to the same hand. Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, in this we can see the same evidence of strangulation, two cuts to the throat, body position laid out in a distinctive manner. Serious & similar slices to the lower abdomen, organ removal, etc. (you know the specs)
The murder scene & medical evidence concerning those three is remarkably "similar" in many aspects.
Now, how many murders in America or Jamaica fall into that category?
1) Strangulation?
2) Throat cut twice?
3) Serious wounds to gain access to the abdomen?
4) Position of body
5) Organs missing?
6) Possessions rifled (money missing)
You might agree the foreign murders may be similar to that of Stride, McKenzie or Coles. In other words the victims were stabbed or killed by the use of a knife.
But, were they similar to the three murders which are, dare I say, undisputably by the same hand, and that hand was Jack the Ripper.
They are not.
Regards, Jon
P.S.
The reason I do not include Kelly with the "certain group of 3" is that the sequence of attack evident in the "3" is not all that obvious with Kelly and is open to too much dispute. |
Author: julienonperson
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 05:13 pm | | Hi Chris
There is one other possibility. That he accidently
poisoned himself, or took an accidential overdose
of arsenic etc., Even though I now reject Maybrick
as JtR, his death could very well have been an
accidental overdose. According to what is written
about him, he took dangerously high levels of both
stricnyne and arsenic. Our Jack may have had similar addictions, and done himself in, not by
choice.
Another thing I wondered about has to do with
horse tranquilizers. Were they available in some
form at the time (or a similar product)? And if
it was, were needles for administering drugs also
available? If yes then couldn't Jack have injected
his victims with a high enough dose to render them
unconscious almost immediately? A small prickmark
would not stand out on their mutilated and unkept
bodies, and I doubt that the technology was
available at the time to check the blood for traces of this drug, Nor do I think they would have had reason to check for same, since it was
apparent they were strangled and stabbed etc.,
A medical student or doctor,or someone with a small knowlege
of medicine, human or animal, or just a person who
worked with horses would have been capable of
administering same.Would love to hear your thoughts on same. regards julie |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 05:22 pm | | Jon,
If you are using those six exact things to determine whether a murder was similar to Jack or not you have knocked off the majority of canonical victims as well, including Nichols. So Jack the Ripper only killed two people now? I see.
And this old discounting MJK is getting tedious. You are picking and choosing an extremely unrealistic idea of what is "similar" solely to support your theory that Jack was out to harvest uteri to sell.
If you take a look at Carrie Brown's killing in New Jersey it's more similar to the Ripper killings than Stride by far, but we don't have enough details to know just how closely it matched. We do know that she was strangled and mutilated, and a doctor claims the killer tried to competely gut her. Hell, that matches closer than Nichols does. To claim that this killing isn't similar to the ripper killings is ridiculous.
It's a shame that we don't have better records on Brown's death, or the other deaths that were reported to be Ripper-like by the press around the world at the time. Dismissing them before we have more details is an extremely foolish thing to do.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 06:49 pm | | On the contrary Dan, you cannot try to push a similarity which is not known to exist.
You claim the foreign killings are similar "even though we have not enough details" to make the claim?
What kind of analysis is that? (wishfull thinking?)
You want to claim similarity even though you do not have enough details?
What are we being asked to believe?
Larry Barbee's analysis of the death of Carrie Brown....
The certificate is a little more forthcoming about her death. The cause of death was strangulation by a portion of clothing tied around the throat and incisions to the lower abdomen, intestines, and vagina. There is more but it is illegible. No mention is made of cuts to the throat.........
On the other hand there were two differences between this murder and the murders in Whitechapel. First, the knife used on Brown was left at the scene of the crime. This did not happen in the Jack the Ripper series of murders. The other difference is the method of strangulation. Jack the Ripper manually strangled his victims; that is, he used his bare hands. Carrie Brown's murderer used a portion of her clothing to strangle her. These differences are significant, but they do not exclude the possibility that the Ripper was responsible for Brown's death......
According to Borchard Carrie Brown was "a dissolute woman of sixty."........
1) descriptions of the wounds were not relayed by the press in great detail;
2) there were cuts and stabs all over Brown's lower trunk;
3) an attempt had been made to entirely cut out the abdomen--according to Dr. Jenkins who did the autopsy;
4) Jenkins believed that the killer failed to remove the whole abdomen because of his rage and Brown's struggling; and,
5) Jenkins changed his opinion at the trial of Ali, deciding that Brown had been strangled first and then mutilated after death.
This is important. Just how good was this Dr. Jenkins, to have officially written (at the time of the autopsy) that Brown was alive and struggling while her assailant cut her open and attempted to remove the abdomen? Brown would have been screaming murder! If her throat had been cut, death would have been nearly instantaneous. Not only would she not be able to cry out, she could not have been struggling. Apparently, Jenkins failed to detect that she had been strangled first.
The reason or reasons that caused Jenkins to change his opinion is not stated. Whatever his reason(s) Jenkins must not have had much confidence in the autopsy he performed.
(thats an understatement)
The police are not known to have believed the Ripper was the person responsible for the murder. It was the press that speculated the Whitechapel Murderer had come to the United States and had killed Carrie Brown.
So there you have it. By all means check out Larry's complete analysis on this site.
http://216.167.97.157/dissertations/dst-carrieb.html?show=all
We can only claim similarity if we can substantiate it.......like it or not, thats the way it works.
The 6 provisional points of similarity I listed (which could be more) are stand alone facts not connected with any theory. And they are required, due to lack of anything else, in order to determine if similarity exists.
Carrie Brown was a 60 yr old woman, strangled with a piece of material (ligature) and her abdomen was cut to an undetermined extent (Dr. Jenkins autopsy report is inadequate).
The murder weapon was left at the scene.
You can argue on purely circumstantial grounds that regardless of anything else, "Jack the Ripper may have murdered Carrie Brown on April 23-4, 1891, in New York.
But, if you choose to argue from points of similarity, .....you loose.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 07:59 pm | | No, I don't "loose"--I merely point out that the killing is extremely similar and that any attempt to brush it off shows a ridiculous bias.
Prostitute strangled, ripped open, mutilated, abdomen targeted... and you say that it can't be the ripper because the killer left the knife and used material to do the strangulation? You can't be serious.
And then we hear about other ripper-style killings for which we don't have enough information about yet and you've already ruled them all out too. Amazing.
Oh well, maybe if you start relaxing how exactly perfectly everything has to fit you might be able to tie Nichols' death in with Chapman's and Eddowes'. With a few months work you might be able to figure out what everyone else already knew since 1888.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 10:42 pm | | Jon--Several serial murderers have committed suicide. Besides, there can be little doubt that the data is skewed by our reliance on "solved" cases.
Andrew Cunanan killed several men over a four or five month period and then committed suicide in a boat house. We like things neat & tidy so we call him a "spree" killer...but how exactly does this really differentiate him from the Whitechapel murderer?
John Wayne Glover was Australia's most repulsive murderer. He bashed little old ladies with a hammer and then strangled them. After a very long series of similar crimes, he pulled the same ugly M.O. on a female acquaintance. Afterwards, he sat in a bathtub, downed a bunch of pills, and slit his wrists. He ended up living, but there's nothing to indicate that he wasn't genuinely trying to kill himself.
Leonard Lake swallowed a cynide pill after the police arrested him.
There's also a case in London in the 1960s in Soho. I forget the details. The man was never caught, but police found very convincing evidence that the killer was a man that had committed suicide sometime after the crimes stopped. There are other examples.
Then, of course, there's Monty Druitt.
Cheers, RP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 10:44 pm | | | David R.--The murders stopped because Sir Charles Warren resigned. |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 08:35 am | | | You know I've thought of that too. What exactly did the murders accomplish? They got Warren fired. What if one of Warren's enemies engineered the whole thing just to get rid of him? |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 12:46 pm | | "A.R." secret revealed: The murders stopped because of something about the murderer. A characteristic he had that we don't adequately discount. Therefore nobody thinks to apply it to the murder series. If you or I were doing this murder series, it wouldn't have ended the way it ended for him.
David |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 04:35 pm | | Dan and Jon. One of you is arguing that Carrie Brown can't be dismissed as a possible Ripper suspect because there is not enough evidence to do so. The other is arguing that Carrie Brown can't be included as a possible Ripper suspect because there is not enough evidence to do so. Rather than argue over who is right, or more right, the both of you should realize that you are both right, each position being valid because of the lack of concrete evidence surrounding the Brown murder.
However, having stated that, I would have to say that at this point in time, and viewed from the standpoint of conventional knowledge, Dan is more right simply because the lack of concrete information does not detract from known circumstances and similarities between the death of Carrie Brown and the Whitechapel murders. As it stands now the possibility that Brown might have been a Ripper victim is a real one until such time as these circumstances and similarities are explained away or expanded upon.
However, having said that, I would like to state that for the last year or so I have been occupied, on and off, in an in-depth study of the Brown murder for an upcoming article to be published in Ripper Notes. This study has led to some important discoveries and quite a few surprises and will attempt to answer the question of Carrie Brown's possible inclusion into the list of Ripper victims. From the standpoint of possessing hitherto unknown information regarding the Brown murder I can say that based on my research I believe that Jon is in fact ultimately correct on this point.
Wolf. |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 06:04 pm | | Wolf,
I look forward to seeing the results of your study. It sounds like it should be very interesting.
(Which reminds me, next time it's not immediately after rent or car insurance etc. I need to pick up some subscriptions to these fine Ripper periodicals people keep putting out.)
And, for the record, I'm not saying she was a ripper victim, just that from what I've seen so far there are more similarities than differences. I look forward to seeing more information, which is always preferable to jumping to conclusions before the evidence comes in.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 06:06 pm | | Just a suggestion - no proof.
Recently did a little research regarding Jack
for a friend. In reviewing the newspaper reports,
I noticed a slight trend. Nothing strong enough
to go with for a touchdown, but possibly worthy
of a pass.
Ever hear of Edward Musgrave Bartellot?
His biography is in the original Dictional of
National Biography, Volume 22 - Supplement, p.
135 - 136. It is in an article about his father
Sir Walter Barttelot. Edward was born 1859,
and joined the army. He served in India and
Afghanistan, and then Egypt during the Arabi
revolt of 1882. Later he served in the Sudan
trying to relieve Gordon in 1885.
Barttelot accompanied an expedition in 1887
in Zanzibar under Sir Henry Stanley. This was
to relieve a German explorer, Emin Pasha.
Bartellot was in charge of the rearguard and
camp, while Stanley went with the bulk of the
men to rescue Emin (eventually Stanley succeeded).
Bartellot had a camp that was soon decimated by
disease. He replaced the lost men with new carriers. In June 1888 he left the camp to make
contact with Stanley. The carriers began deserting. Bartellot was a harsh disciplinarian.
On July 19, 1888 Bartellot was shot and killed in
his hut by an Arab when Bartellot tried to stop
the man's wife from making noise. The killer
was later executed.
I haven't fully checked this out, but although
Bartellot was killed in July, for some reason the
circumstances of his murder became front page news
in England, in the middle of September (just after
the murder of Annie Chapman). It became a major
issue, especially as the London newspapers were
openly wondering if Bartellot had been murdered in
a scheme by Tippoo Tip [the controvertial African
slave dealer, who was involved with Stanley in the
rescue plan]. Ever since Gordon's death at
Khartoum in 1885, the British public seemed avid
about third world local power villains (a trait
we have not lost in 2002/3).
After nearly two weeks of the Bartellot case,
the Ripper strikes, and kills two women on one
night (Stride and Eddowes). This time, he not
only kills twice, but writes on walls! He is
back with a vengeance - as thought announcing
"REMEMBER ME!!!!!"
Should be a cap-off of sorts. And it would be.
In terms of homicide (hating to use this terminology, but I think you can understand it)
it was excellent. It got attention - exactly
what the killer wanted.
And then the bottom fell out.
The day after the double event (September 30, 1888), the remains of a body of a woman were
found in a theatre that was being torn down
near Scotland Yard. The Ripper had been upstaged
again by an unknown amateur - who was also never
caught.
He may very well have been in a state of intense
humiliation and anger. Imagine the lengths the
double header had cost him, in time, trouble, and
danger, and he's upstaged! So he broods for a
month, wondering how he can make sure that nobody
forgets his handiwork after the next time.
And the results are the shambles at Miller's Court.
It's a possible suggestion. We have to work out
a time table inclusive of the Ripper killings
(I would go back to the April murder of Emma
Smith and take it through Frances Cole) to see
if every killing is closely replaced by some new
high grade sensation in the press. If the killer
was a publicity hound, it would explain the timing
a bit. Anyway, it's worth considering.
Jeff Bloomfield |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 06:25 pm | | Hi RP,
Are you referring to the Jack the Stripper crimes in the UK?
If recollection serves, the authorities were closing in on their primary suspect - who was found to be a suicide.
I think Dan makes a valid point too - it is an assumption that the murders stopped.
Much of the debate on the case depends upon who you think were the murderer's victims. Some believe there were as few as three and others opt for over a dozen in various locales.
It is all a matter of interpretation.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 08:10 pm | | Diana,
The technical reasoning behind Warren's resignation was that he had written an article about the administration of the Met in a magazine called Murray's Magazine.
Back in the day, it was a strict no-no for anyone in the Police - even the comissioner - to speak to the press without the express consent of the Home Secretary.
Warren and Matthews were in a pissing battle over control of the Met at the time - Warren was a military officer, and while he was willing to take orders, he didn't brook outside interference with the internal workings of his command.
So Matthews took him to task for the article, he got pissy and quit.
Granted, Matthews was an idiot and drove him to it by harping on something insignifcant, but that's why he quit. The Ripper case certainly was part of it, but it wasn't specifically that case that made him resign.
If you want more in depth info, check out my dissertation. I talk about it a lot.
B |
Author: Robin
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 02:09 am | | Hi and Happy New Year to one and all.
Could it simply be that 'Jack' was murdered by person or persons unknown?
Just a random thought.
Robin |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 07:58 am | | | I have suggested on these boards before that since the Whitechapel ladies were very much up-in-arms, many of them had started carrying weapons of all kinds. It is possible that he attacked someone who was rather better prepared than he thought and paid with his life. The woman involved would not neccessarily realize that she had just done away with JTR. She probably would not report the attack to the police because she would fear being charged with murder. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 08:54 am | | Hi Robin,
That is no doubt a possibility - we just don't know if the killer was institutionalized, incapacitated, took up his crimes elsewhere or in a dissimiliar fashion, or merely stopped.
Happy New Year to you and all!
Rich |
Author: Stuart
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:13 am | | Various reasons why he stopped I suppose.
1/ If JTR was Bury then he was hung soon after. I must admit I like it !
2/ If JTR was Chapman then he changed MO then got hung years later.
3/ If JTR was Druitt then he topped himself soon after
4/ If JTR was Maybrick then he got killed soon after
5/ If JTR was Kelly then he left the area, but kept returning. Maybe he committed other murders elsewhere. One reason I don't like the case against Kelly is because he was at large for so long after, and apparently committed very few similar murders.
6/ Tumblety fled the East End
7/ Cohen/Kosminsky was put in an asylum |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:20 am | | Diana--My comment that the Ripper murders ended with Warren's resignation is not really my own belief, but rather, it is the belief of a certain crack-pot theorist of my acquaintance. His suspect is a certain high-ranking police official that was denied a job by Warren in 1887. The Whitechapel murders were a plot to destroy his enemy. Every step of the way, his motive was to create as much chaos as possible; he did this by cleverly inciting Samuel Barnett, George Lusk, anti-semitism, the Star, the City of London Police, Drs. Brown & Baxter, etc. Years later, when Thomas Cutbush's odd activities were dangerously renewing interest in the Ripper murders among the Home Office, this same high-ranking official [the real murderer] attempted to convince them that the Ripper case was, in fact, closed. He did this by concocting false information that the Ripper had died suddenly at the end of 1888. It's all a great big circle, and very logical.
Unfortunately, the theorist is wrong, and the story has an unhappy ending. The said theorist is now being detained in a mental asylum in a northern region. Cheers, and happy New Year. RJP |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 05:08 pm | | | Gulp! If they lock up everybody with a wacky theory about JTR we're all in trouble! Hark! Methinks I hear a knock at the door! Could it be men in white jackets? |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 05:23 pm | | Wolf,
I look foward to reading the "hitherto unknown information regarding the Brown murder" in Ripper Notes. Without giving anything away, were you able to come up with anything new on Arbie La Bruckman. Was my long lost cyber friend Michael Conlon involved in your study?
Author: Michael Conlon
Saturday, 13 April 2002 - 12:46 am
I'm researching (when I find the time) some more info. on La Bruckman, and he continues to look very promising (I'm following a lead that he may have spent some time in Jamaica , where there were Ripper-like murders).
There's been a lot of talk about 'profiling' the Ripper, and La Bruckman fits many of the salient features (something you pointed out earlier on this thread): He was in the 26-30 year range during the killings, he tortured animals, he was known to be physically powerful, he possessed a job (slaughterman) whereby he could obtain morbid fulfillment, he was reported to have had a scar on his face, he was reported to have been a habitual abuser of prostitutes, he was reported to have been financially supporting a mother and sister with no other male figure present in the family...not to mention that he was arrested and held in London on suspicion of being JTR and was later arrested in New York as the prime suspect in the murder of "Old Shakespeare"!
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 10:00 pm | | I think Mr. Palmer's insane theorist is closer to being right than most of the self-servingly termed "major contributors" to this web site, IMHO.
David |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:09 am | | Dear David:
I think Mr. Palmer's insane theorist is closer to being right than most of the self-servingly termed "major contributors" to this web site, IMHO.
Why?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 01:36 pm | | Because--
"It's all a great big circle, and very logical."
David |
|
|
|
|
