|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Jack's fantasy? Why stop?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Jack's fantasy? Why stop?
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 05:34 am |        | | With regard to serial killers who are never caught and whether they stop on their own or not let's consider the case of the Marquis de Sade, whose writings I have never read and have no desire to read, Thank You! Being caught or not caught was not a consideration for the Marquis because he lived in a time and culture where he was able to place himself above the law. I intend to do some historical research on this, but I suspect he kept right on till age and infirmity or death stopped him. |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 06:17 am | | | I was wrong. De Sade was incarcerated by the French authorities. Here is what his jailer said when M. de Sade was 70 years old: The Count de Montalivet, Minister of the Interior, issues a harsh order: "Considering that M. de Sade....is suffering from the most dangerous of insanities, contact between him and the other inmates poses incalculable dangers, and for as much as his writings are no less demented than his speech and conduct....I therefore order the following: That Monsieur de Sade be given completely separate lodging so that he be barred from all communication with others....and that the greatest care be taken to prevent any use by him of pencils, pens, ink, or paper. The director of the asylum is made personally responsible for the execution of this order." |
Author: Desdinova
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 09:15 am | | Isn't it possible that good ol' Jack didn't stop at 5? Couldn't he have satisfied his urges more discreetly, or in a different style so as not to raise suspicion? For example, he was creating mass
hysteria among the people of London, so it was necessary for him to either:
A)Stop killing
B)Kill somewhere else
C)Kill things he could get away with e.g. animals
D)Kill using both a different MO and type of person (no prostitutes)
All of these are plausible in my eyes,but are they
in anyone else's?
Feedback?
Desdinova |
Author: Jill
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 09:38 am | | Desdinova- 2 of the 4 alternatives are plausible, if they happened.
A)I don't believe Jack would have stopped volantary. He was to our knowledge only killing since 3 months, he was just getting a real good taste for it. If there is a possibility for a serial killer to stop out of his own will, I think he could only over a longer period of time.
B)Kill somewhere else would be a good option: but so far of what I've read, there haven't been a good deal of serial victims to back this up.
C)He got way past experimenting with animals already. He crossed the boundary of gutting humans. I think he already had seen, done and got the T-Shirt of animals.
D)Using a different MO would be plausible, I believe, if he would gradually go from the previous to the other one, not drastic. He had to warm up his feelings for that. And I can certainly believe he would want to try his original MO with women higher up the ladder. But did such murders occur. So far again, I don't find them.
So at the moment I think he either got caught for something else (robbery, '?rape?', ?duelling?, pyromania, ...)or died.
Cheers, Jill |
Author: Desdinova
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 09:56 am | | Thanx Jill!
I'm pretty new to posting , old to reading, but I tend to agree with what you said.If Jack did kill women who are better, and he used a different MO,
then who would suspect him? The police and the public would be looking for someone who killed prostitutes and mutilated them badly. However, as there were a lot of letters in different styles of writing sent to the police station, that meant there were a lot of sick people who admired Jack.
So much so, in fact, that they could have done some ripping of their own? So, Jack could have moved on to "better" women earlier on, with the other murders credited to Jack merely copycat killings?
All of this is speculation, though.
Ideas?
Love and hugs,
Desdinova
(Des for short) |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 10:36 am | | Hi, Des:
If there were any Ripper-style murders that occurred among "better" women as you put it, as opposed to prostitutes, the media and the police would have made the connection. Murders of all types were covered in the press at the time, and the newspapers were anxious to connect one murder with another, with the result that later murderers who were caught, such as Deeming, Cream, and Chapman, were suspected as being Jack although their victims were not necessarily prostitutes and nor did their style of killing match Jack's.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Desdinova
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 11:10 am | | Good point, Chris and it could be true.But the police and media would only make the connection if the MO was even slightly similar, and I heard that Jack wrote on a wall "The Jewes are not to blame" in blood.However, the main police guy ordered it to be washed off before photos were taken of it to stop hysteria. What if the police said the same thing about some following murders? That would explain Jack's apparent cease of more victims, and the media would not suspect much. Yet again though, this is pure speculation. I think you are right about doubting Deeming, Cream and Chapman who were just "normal"(?) killers.
Chou for now,
Des |
Author: Scriblerius
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 11:40 am | | | I am writing to defend the name of the Marquis de Sade. Sade never killed anyone, he was a mere pervert, one whose fantasies were so intense that he could spin out hundreds of pages whenever he got near a pen. Also, regarding the above accusations, how could a man be 'above the law' if he spent so many years in prisons and asylums? And let's not forget, in France the post-1789 period was not a time when one went about exploiting aristocratic privilege. Finally, if you want a taste, read "120 Days of Sodom." |
Author: NetNut
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 12:14 pm | | | Hey Des, I think you've got some really interesting material there.Keep up the good work. |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 12:17 pm | | Des:
The Goulston Street Graffito was not written in blood, it was written in chalk. As I mentioned in my last point, there was a frenzy among the media to identify Jack, and the police were under intense pressure to solve the case. If there had been other Ripper-like murders in Britain, they would have been noticed. There were other murders that bear some resemblance, in Jamaica, Managua (Nicaragua), and Jersey City, USA, but no one has yet connected Jack to these events, and the probability is that they were unrelated to the Whitechapel murders.
Chris George |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 09:03 pm | | I agree with Scriblerius concerning Sade. Sade was a pervert; essentially the world's first full-time, out-of-the-closet, serious-minded pervert--he was not a murderer and did not perceive himself as above the law. He basically wanted to trick people so as to enlist them as his co-conspirators in perverting and overturning the most basic of natural impulses, for the purpose of breaking away from subjugation to society's moral scheme, which he saw as corrupt. For example, Sade and his disciples would sometimes engage in slow-motion orgies in which every single movement was pre-scripted, thus converting the spontaniety of sexual feelings to rote mechanical actions. Kind of a robotoid tableaux vivants. This fundamental perversion of nature would, he thought, deliver them from the societal or cultural forces which enslaved most people.
Sade is misunderstood--not that he ought to be considered necessarily right in what he did!
David |
Author: Desdinova
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 11:04 pm | | Cheers, Chris!
I honestly thought that it was written in blood next to one of his victims....oh well.
You are right about the media and the police wanting to identify a killer,but isn't it possible
that they wouldn't notice a dead "better" woman/prostitute if he covered it up sufficiently.
(e.g. suicide) Just thinkin off the top of my head.
See ya,
Desdinova |
Author: Kevin
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 01:20 pm | | It seems likely to me that Jack spent a good deal of time out on the street simply planning. Looking for the best locations, with the best escape routes. He may have timed the police beats and followed the prostitutes around. Then how many times do you think he aborted mission? It just wasn't right, somebody around, not the right feel, etc.
I am making two points here:
1) Jack was somewhat of a perfectionist. I mean I don't think it was sheer luck to get away under such circumstances. So how does this relate? I am not sure whether Mary Kelly was the perfect job for him. The final job. Seems unlikely, I think he was a careful and deliberate planner and that he planned for most eventualities.
Unfortunately I have to run number 2 later. |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 01:12 am | | Hi Kevin,
I tend to agree with your number 1 point. Murder was what Jack did best. Everything else he put his hand to up until he became infamous probably went pear-shaped somehow or didn't meet his own standards. And I don't believe he simply began and ended his series in just a short few months of 1888. He was just too good for that. Planning was everything IMHO.
Looking forward to number 2.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Kevin
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 08:49 am | | Hi Caz
Actually I didn't even finish number one (and I am not sure if I remember number 2 but we'll see).
Think about any perfectionist that you have ever known, maybe you are one yourself. The point is THEY NEVER GET IT JUST RIGHT. They are never satisfied completely. I don't think that Jack felt as though he had finally created a masterpiece, his life work and then would want to retire.
Of course this is assuming that he was a meticulate planner and not some raving madman who was simply lucky.
I don't think anyone is that lucky so what happened to him...
I don't buy the switch in MO (I think it is possible for a serial killer to change his MO), I just think that Jack was on to something and he was good at it.
I liked the new theory about the blood poisoning, not because of its likelihood or its validity but more because I think this is the sort of thing that may have happened to him. Something he didn't plan for.
I have to admit that even for a meticulous planner he was pretty lucky.
Ah yes I remember number 2 - whether Jack knew his victims. It is possible, but I suspect that it may have been only from afar. Studying their routine, etc. As I mentioned before I think that he "went" with many prostitutes but didn't go through with it. I don't know how he explained himself for not having sex with them or what he did if he didn't kill them, or why the prostitutes did not notice any strange behavior, but I do have a hunch that he was practicing.
He might take them into a corner, a dark alley, a location previously scouted out, count the seconds of the police beat, keep on the lookout for people around, and ONLY if it was just right did he do the deed.
This means that they were random in the sense that the ones who died were the ones who were with him when the moment was "just right". Of course this just goes in with my perfectionist theory and it could be totally wrong, just an idea. It also means that he had a lot of control over his "problem" that he was so close to the kill but let them go sometimes.
Of course this musing does nothing to further the case I just think the psychology of the thing is quite interesting.
Kevin |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 10:05 am | | Hi Kevin,
Yep, I find it all very interesting. I agree about Jack not actually having sex with any of the women. In fact, maybe he couldn't, and this endeared him to them if he was a 'regular' punter who just ended up having a chat or joke with them instead. Easy money with none of the hassle. 'Luvverly old duck. Don't you worry your poor little 'ead about not performin' tonight. You will be comfortable whatever 'appens'.
Did he gain a few confidants this way before he felt it safe to go in for the kill? They would be totally off guard if it was a case of 'Oh it's only old so-and-so again. 'e's pretty 'armless'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Desdinova
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 12:32 pm | | I remember an FBI report saying that just about
every serial killer had some sort of problem with them sexually, and I don't think Jack is the exception that proves the rule. This agrees with the point about not performing with the prostitutes, which is why the police found no trace of semen or other bodily fluid (not blood) about the crime scenes. If he was a perfectionist, then he might be able to control his urges and not perform any sexual acts on the body. Maybe on his clothes or in the surrounding area, perhaps but not at the crime scene itself , which is what the police would be looking for.
B-Bye
Desdinova |
Author: Julian
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 05:00 pm | | G'day Caz, Kevin, Desdinova, everyone.
Interesting comments all round, goodonyas. Was Jack a perfectionist? Hmmmmm, maybe.
I'm pretty sure Jack did check out the best sites and escape routes. I think I've mentioned somewhere before that if you have a look at all the murder sites there's an escape route right near by, for example with Catharine Eddowes he was out of sight within seconds of murdering her and had totaly vanished within a minute.
I think there might be a couple of conclusions that can be drawn here, either Jack had lived in the area at some stage and new Whitechapel like the back of his hand or he was a frequent visitor to the area with the specific perpose of using Whitechapel as his playpen. (I think that's mentioned in a diary somewhere).
Jules |
Author: Desdinova
Wednesday, 28 July 1999 - 01:06 pm | | Hi Jules, Caz, Kevin and the rest!
Of all the books, sites, message boards I have read, they all say that JTR knew what he was doing. This makes me think it is an inside job.
(Personally I think McNaghten...)
If he is a perfectionist, then he would probably spend days working out how he was going to do these things.
But....
Does that mean that his victims were by chance, or deliberate?
Feedback, anyone?
Cheers,
Des |
Author: Kevin
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 02:05 am | | Hi all
I have been having an ongoing discussion with a friend of mine about Jack and he also thinks a police conspiracy or an "inside job" is viable. The strength of that case is the fact that Jack seemed to know where the police were and would be and that it seemed virtually impossible for him to escape with such heavy police surveillance.
I don't buy it for one reason. I think it is amazing that this mystery has remained a mystery for so long and it seems to me that this is because only one person knew the truth- Jack. I would be more likely (not much more) to buy an accomplice theory, but a conspiracy that more than two people knew about would be nearly impossible to keep secret for so long.
As for his knowing Whitechapel I agree with you Jules and that is why I think the suspects who were passing through should be discluded. I do think he was a permanent resident of the area. I don't think he was put away in an insane asylum because he was too sane (that sounds funny doesn't it). I think he functioned relatively normally in society and that he did not draw much attention to himself. So as far as I am concerned he either died (murdered, fluke death, etc.) or was imprisoned and died there, but I can't picture what he could have been imprisoned for. |
|
|
|
|
