|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 15 June 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Jack The Ripper 'was one of the highest in the land'. :
Archive through 15 June 2002
Author: jennifer pegg
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 01:41 pm |        | (at the risk of being ignored by mr neagle for a third time)Mr Neagle you say
"Lees' daughter Eva, showed documentary evidence that he received a pension for his contribution to solving the Whitechapel Murders"
please speculate i am not aware of what occasion you are referring to. in my time researching rjl i have found no evidence of such proof, if you know of the source of it i would be interested to konw it (seriously)
mr paul begg says
"As far as Eva Lees is concerned, many people have questioned her claims and found no evidence for them, among them Elizabeth Longford in her monumental biography of Queen Victoria, and investigations undertaken in 1931 and 1948 by Mrs. Brackenbury of the SPR and D.J. West respectively produced no supportive evidence whatsoever. Martin’s conclusion therefore isn’t his alone, although it may be more firmly expressed that elsewhere. "
i would agree with him unless you know something which i don't.
you say
"As far as I know, there is no proof that Lees' daughter lied to improve his standing. That is probably just your opinion again. Lees' daughter Eva, showed documentary evidence that he received a pension for his contribution to solving the Whitechapel Murders. And Cynthia Legh, who knew Lees since 1912, reported in Light, the Journal of the College of Psychic Studies, that she had heard him tell a varient half a dozen times. Also, Lees promised not to go public about it, and the diary of a famous medium would probably become public, I would say. "
i would like to add that while i would not like to speculate on cynithia leghs reliability (as i know little about her) she was writing 40 yrs after lees died.
i would not mind talking to you seriously about this, but i cannot speculate on the other people you mention.
i would add my opinion on this is the result of research that is objective and i do not mind changing it if you have the proof you suggest that RJL said he KNEW who JTR was and SOLVED the case.
regards,
jennifer
ps you can email me privately if it helps! |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 01:42 pm | | Hello Everyone,
Can we get back on topic.....please.
I think Cheech and Chong were the highest in the land, hands down. OK, now hands up.
Monty, Ally, Arf, and Mr. Fido, you're out; Simon (Owen?) didn't say hands up.
Does anyone think that the victim's wounds were the work of a frenzied mind, too disorganized to pre-plan a scenario as complicated as Mitre Square for instance? |
Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 09:00 pm | | | Folks.....This has nothing to do with JtR..I just read this entire list of posts....As an American,it was like I was on Mars. The English( and I am part-English ) fight really decently ! Very strange to see verbal arguments like this. No going for jugulars and punches seemed to be pulled....I mean this as a compliment to your nation's civility,even when fighting ! Really enjoyable.....HB |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 10:37 pm | | | Paul--Hi. [A digression]. Speaking of Leonard Matters, next time you watch the movie Fahrenheit 451 (if for no other reason that to oggle at Julie Christie) watch keenly towards the end of the film where the fire crew storms Montag's house and burns his books. There's a close-up shot of several books going up in flames. One of them is Leonard Matter's The Mystery of Jack the Ripper. It was said that the director Truffault very carefully selected the books that he wanted to be shown being burned by the censors. Why he selected this book, I don't know, but I thought it was interesting. Cheers, RP |
Author: brad mcginnis
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 11:57 pm | | | Howard, this site was started and is maintained by an American. Stick around, as the gloves do come off here. Be advised you shall find some great arguments, and maybe a friend or too along the way.....Yours Brad |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 12:56 am | | Hi RJP
That's fascinating. I'll try to put that in Ripperologist, especially if I can find a photograph of the scene. I love that sort of thing, like Jack the Ripper being mentioned in the very first episode of a popular and now very cult radio series called Hancock's Half Hour. It's odd where he turns up.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 06:57 am | | Hello Howard,
I genuinely enjoyed the argument in which I got to know,and even respect Ally along the way.
I don't think the situation would have been the same had she given in early on!
I like a woman with a bit of fight.
Talking of which,Do you keep whips in that basement of yours Ally?
Mick |
Author: jennifer pegg
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 01:28 pm | | hallo ,
mr begg you said
"and investigations undertaken in 1931 and 1948 by Mrs. Brackenbury of the SPR and D.J. West respectively produced no supportive evidence whatsoever."
i have not heard of this do you know where i can get more info?
regards
jennifer |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 04:11 pm | | Hi Jennifer
The Identity of ‘Jack the Ripper’, An Examination of An alleged Psychic Solution by D.J. West was published in the Journal of The Society for Psychical Research, July-Aug. 1949, and the results of the inquiries of Mrs Brackenbury at Scotland Yard are recorded therein, presumably derived from the files on Jack the Ripper apparently held by the Society for Psychical Research. |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 09:28 pm | | Joseph,
The crime scene evidence indicates that no frenzy took place at any time. The murderer was entirely calm and collected throughout.
David |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 12:43 pm | | Hello David,
I'm looking at the pace the murderer had to maintain in order to make his statement, then escape.
Generally, he used his well nourished strength against comparatively weaker victims, he quickly and brutally murdered them, and with an equally brutal physical force, he quickly mutilated their bodies, and got the hell out of there. The mutilations to Ms. Eddowes are a fit of paroxysm; he wanted to do the most damage, as fast as possible. That is a frenzied pace bro.
What do you think David, is my interpretation reasonable? What's the alternative to brute strength, and speed? What would that scenario look like? How would that alternative scenario cope with the limited time ranges usually mentioned for each murder? |
Author: Leighton Ronson Young
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 01:27 pm | | Well hello people.
in the case of Catherine Eddows, the ripper had so short a length of time to do the murder and the mutilation (even the doctor gave a longer length of time than ws feasibly possible in the situation). that it could only mean three things.
1) The ripper was actualy caught in the act by the police who subsiquesntly covered it up or indeed acted as lookouts. This could explain the delay in cmmiting the next murder as the poice made the appropriate actions to cover up what happened.
2) That he knew the times of the policemen who entered the yard. this would mean that he would have to have watched this area for some time and made a note of their comming and going.
3) he was just extremely lucky???
now with any of these, it would mean that he found a real urge to commit that murder in that square. Why would he do that when their was such a lot of back lanes and places where he could do it in private. what made him want to take this risk and do it there.
Luv and Hugs to u all
Leighton
 |
Author: jennifer pegg
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 01:32 pm | | thanks to paul begg,
i will now look for it!
jennifer |
Author: Leighton Ronson Young
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 01:35 pm | | Ally
about your boots verses stilleto option...
Im willing to pay, price and quality often go hand in hand
all the best
Leighton
|
Author: Leighton Ronson Young
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 01:37 pm | | I was reading on the other message boards about
the policeman who siad that when he went into Mitre squ
he saw three peole form the royal houshold.
I remember reading about this in the book murder and madness but would love more information on this.
can any of you help me.
what was his name and where did the info come from?????
luv u all
Leighton |
Author: Leighton Ronson Young
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 01:40 pm | | Simon my fine and dandy fellow.
how did you get that little dancing bloke on your thing????
he's really good !!!!
I want one like that
in fact I can get the smiling man but you lot have got them doing all manner of strange things, how do you do it. you are indead the scoudrels at the gates of Rome |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 01:44 pm | | Leighton.
On point 1,......not worth replying to,(are you joking?)
On point 2,.....the prostitutes would likely have known how much time they had, Jack didn't need to know.
On point 3,....quite possibly.
Also, Surgeons who practice their skill at home work slow. They are a poor comparison to a killer who 'appears to be quick with the knife'.
A good comparison might be a field surgeon from a military campaign. Field Surgeons in the U.S. Civil War worked extremely fast.
Did you notice the facial mutilations (suggesting a lunatic?) only appeared AFTER the suggestion was made publicly that 'Jack' may be a doctor.
The murder of Chapman was more methodical and Dr. Phillips made some tentative suggestions due to the precisness of the work......then, Eddowes is murdered, similar method but now includes facial mutilations.......was Jack leading the police 'off-track'......playing up to the idea that Jack was a 'lunatic' and leading them away from that previous 'somewhat skilled' suggestion?
Did it strike too close to home?
Just thoughts....
Regards, Jon |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 02:57 pm | | Leighton - your policeman with three royal household personages is the Freda Thompson story. Check back archive of this board thru' June 11th for Thos Neagles' posting 'Was Dr Thomas Stowell lying...' and my response.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 03:44 pm | | Joseph,
Yes, he was stronger than his victims. Yes, he quickly killed and mutilated them, and left the scenes. Yes, he worked at a very fast pace, at least in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes. And yes, he did a lot of damage to them.
But no, this doesn't indicate a frenzy. If he were frenzied, why wasn't he caught? Don't you think if he went into a frenzy he'd be going "Whooo--whooo-whooo!" as he were mutilating? Don't you think he'd be acting strangely afterward, which would have pointed him out to passersby? How do you account for the fact that he didn't have any blood on his clothing, that he always left just in time to not be caught, and that he generally had to have had his wits about him and known what he was doing?
In short, this case has NO acceleration of violence, NO frenzy, and NO disorganization. NONE. Show me where you find it in the evidence.
David |
Author: Michael Raney
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 04:55 pm | | This case has NO acceleration of violence? Really? It appears to me as if there is an accelration of violence with each murder. Just my humble opinion.
Mikey |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 05:41 pm | | Only practitioners of the ' black arts ' can get cute clipart...
 |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 06:24 pm | | Hello David,
You wrote: If he were frenzied, why wasn't he caught? Are all frenzied knife murderers brought to justice? Are all unsolved knife homicides the work of calm and deliberate individuals? You haven't established a connection between frenzy, and capture.
You wrote: Don't you think if he went into a frenzy he'd be going "Whooo--whooo-whooo!" as he were mutilating? Are sound effects common to murderers? Are sound effects normally associated with frenzy? Is it your position that murder and frenzy are mutually exclusive? Is it your position that the Whitechapel Murderer was a mentally stable dude?
You wrote: How do you account for the fact that he didn't have any blood on his clothing. How do you know he didn't have any blood on his clothing? He surely may have had some degree of blood on him somewhere, if only a small splash on dark trousers or a dark jacket, but we'll never know for certain, because he wasn't captured.
You wrote: that he always left just in time to not be caught No one positively knows what the time frame was between his departing the scene, and the discovery of the corpse. There are discrepancies, and conjecture regarding bells or clocks sounding the hour, half hour, quarter hour; take your pick; you could develop a scenario around each one.
You wrote: he generally had to have had his wits about him and known what he was doing. Why is your assumption any more plausible then one where an opportunistic killer acts when he's in the proper frame of mind to do murder?
My original question asks: if the victim's wounds were the work of a frenzied mind, too disorganized to pre-plan a scenario as complicated as Mitre Square for instance.
Put another way: Are violent emotional, or physical outbursts (either constant or periodic) characteristics normative to an organized mind? Is such a person capable of planning, and executing a vicious murder mutilation under the nose of a retired (or off duty?) police constable, between the patrols of at least two other constables, and in very poor light, and then escape undetected to a pre-planned bolt hole? Would this person know when to stop cutting, get up, and calmly walk away?
My statement that: The mutilations to Ms. Eddowes are a fit of paroxysm; he wanted to do the most damage, as fast as possible combines the obvious necessity of speed with the likelihood of physical strength, and my interpretation of the motive force behind his murderous bent.
You have answered no to the existence of frenzy, and no to the issue of disorganization, you've even included NO acceleration of violence as a kicker, but you haven't explained why my interpretation of paroxysm is unreasonable. I'm not proposing a hypothesis derived from a perspective of evidence. I'm asking a simple question about the possible compatibility of two seemingly opposite mind-sets. My understanding of the dialectic process is that proof isn't required to ask a question.
What's the alternative to brute strength, and speed? What would that scenario look like, and how would it cope with the limited time ranges usually mentioned for each murder? |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 07:01 pm | | Simon,
That is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. You should be hunted down and destroyed.
Cheers,
Ally |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 08:12 pm | | Hi Joseph,
Brute strength isn't exactly a necessity in this case. Jack didn't cut into anything that was particularly tough.(Mainly just through thin muscle, and a little cartilage.) So what he did could easily been done in a short time.
Actually, going by the field medic idea, medic's were known to be able to slice off a limb within a few minutes(typically less than five) as long as they had the right tools. So what Jack was responsible for would not exactly require him to be strong.(Actually there have been a few rather weak killers in the past that have decapitated victims with one or two strokes. And a decapitation is not easy.(As I'm sure Jack himself learned.))
As for speed, this was DEFINITELY something Jack needed. But when we think of Jack's agility we have to wonder how skilled he was with a knife. I mean to be rather quick he can't be clumsy and fumble about with it.(However, a little clumsiness may actually be displayed in Catherine Eddowes, in the fact that he cut lose an extra section of her intestines. This could have been an accident due to the rush, the organ could have been in the way of something that caught his attention, or he simply didn't cut enough of it away in the first place to do what he wanted to do.)
One thing you do bring up has sparked a question in me though. If Jack does know he only has a limited time with the victims(whether it be because he knows about the Police Beats or if the victims themselves gave him a general idea), how does he check the time?(I can't see him pulling out a pocket watch to see how much time he's taking, performing the mutilations. And when one is busy, minutes tend to fly by rather quickly.) So how does Jack know when precisely to quit and run?
Regards,
Chris H.
P.S. Awwww Come now Ally. Don't be so harsh on Simon. The gif kinda reminds me of the way I picture Caz.  |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 09:51 pm | | Joseph,
Yes, it is my humble position that the murderer was mentally stable. That he was, in fact, as mentally stable as the Rock of Gibraltar, much more mentally stable than you or I. Otherwise he just couldn't have done what he did repeatedly and not make so much noise or get himself so messy that he would have escaped detection.
When people say that the level of violence increased, on what are they basing this? I would think the level of violence, as defined by the murder of the woman itself, remained the same. It was a low level of violence. A quick bonk on the head for Tabram, a quick strangulation for most of the others, or a quick slice of the throat in the case of Stride. So what's so violent? If you want violence, you take and slap the woman around for awhile while she's still living, pull back her head and stick your finger right into her eye socket, really make her puke and scream. This didn't happen. What did happen was the mutilations increased, but the mutilations were not acts of violence.
Show me where the internal organs or blood were spewed around the crime scene, please. Show me where there were there were bits thrown up against the wall or the ceiling. You can't do it. Now if the murderer is getting freakier and freakier, explain why this didn't happen. Why wasn't Mary Jane's small intestine splatted up against the ceiling, and hanging off when the police arrived?
Paroxysm is a nod to the lust crowd. You know them, Joseph, the folks who think the murderer panted after blood and violence in a sexual heat. That he had inner demons driving him toward ever fiercer expressions and explosions. Where is that in the evidence? How do you know he had a wanton need of blood? Not all sexual serial murderers do. David Berkowitz made a lot of blood in his killings, but he didn't roll in it. It was a part of the price of admission, and likely he enjoyed seeing it, but it needn't have been his reason number 1.
Contact light! Okay, engine stop; modes control both auto; descent engine command override on; engine arm on; 413 is in. Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.
David |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 04:17 am | | Hi David,
Excellent point regarding the escalation of violence; once a person is dead, the point is mute. As you say: it was brief, and almost benign in its application, brought about by a quick and brutal act of physical force. Brute force was necessary to kill Ms. Chapman, and essential to murder Ms. Eddowes. Ms. Chapman, as recorded in the Casebook achieves, and elsewhere no doubt, was brought down without a struggle after a brief conversation, and then quickly butchered. The muted sounds of her last handle were recognized, and partially overheard by the man next door; he also testified to hearing a thud against the fence. That, is brute strength; she is dropped and chopped, no fuss, and no mas.
Ms. Eddowes, although recovering from intoxication, was aware of the additional danger on the street from a knife-wielding murderer. She may have tempered her need for doss money with caution, and in any event, would have fought hard for her life at the first sign of danger. I'm sure you've seen the morgue photos; her face does not betray surprise, fright, or desperation. She is just, plain, dead; she didn't know what hit her, and that is the embodiment of brute strength. Therefore, I must concur with your perspective David, the violence was in the act of murder, and not the mutilations.
You describe frenzy in terms of an extremity of hysteria, (i.e. blood, guts, organs, and flesh scattered about the crime scenes), but what about the other extremity, the nodding, and quiet internal voices of a Rainman the Ripper. The idiot savant going about the business of a quick brutal murder, followed by a curious, childlike mutilation, (i.e. gotta save the baby, gotta cut open the abdomen, got cut up the vagina) yada, yada, yada.
We can get a very accurate picture of the degree of frenzy by bracketing the actual evidence on hand against contemporary (contextual) examples of both extremes. The comparison will reflect where along the frenzy bell curve the Whitechapel murders fall. This Radka Equilibrium would lend itself to firming up a number of concepts that are now loose conjectures. After determining the Whitechapel murderers probable state of mind, Ripperologists could eliminate the most unlikely suspects, and focus their attention on the candidates that fall with-in the 68 percentile, or one standard deviation away on each side of a true, positive identification. Does this sound like an undertaking that has a prospect of returning a reasonable knowledge base profit?
And yes David, my use of paroxysm as an imagery mechanism is an exaggerated Carroll Chessman type nod to that crowd that conceptualizes the mutilation of sexual organs as a lusty, busty, big and bloody bacchanal. And there is an extensive criminal psychology research compendium to support that reasonable opinion. Look at the evidence and the rational: that he mutilated the victim's sex organs is part of the historical record; that there was blood and visceral lubricant galore, is part of the record; that there is a better than even chance that the murderer is male is a safe bet; that something sexual passed through his mind every seven seconds, piece-o-cake; that a woman's goodies are a frequent part of that mental parade is a push; that mutilating those goodies was the primary motivation behind the Whitechapel murders …..your right; it's just speculation. There is no evidence of the killer reveling in the gore; the opposite is the more reasoned response. No blood, or no easily discernable blood on the murderer's clothing and hands is preferable to the killer because it facilitates his escape. Escape was essential because a public understanding of the statement would require repetitive events. Making the statement, having it understood, and most important of all, permanently defying detection was mandatory because it proved the statement correct.
Determining a few aspects of the knife would be helpful to identifying the killers socio-economic condition. Tomorrow, Saturday, I would like to revisit the knife concepts I initiated and briefly touched on two years ago; they focused on the quality, cost, and maintenance of the different types of knives reportedly used. Today, however, I must get back to the article I'm researching or it 'll never get done.
Let me know your thoughts David, and everyone. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 04:57 am | | Hi Joseph, David, All,
Thinking about Jack's state of mind during the deed made me think about his state of mind just beforehand.
If Jack's victim led him to her normal 'safe' spot, when would she have expected him to part with his money? Presumably the instant both partners in the transaction considered themselves alone and unobserved. "'Ere we are then, me old cocksparrer, let's be 'avin' yer dosh, then we'd better be quick abaat it and scarper before the cops get back."
We know that no money was found at the scene. We don't know if Jack had any intention of handing over cash. But the moment she asked for it would have been pivotal. Jack had three choices at this point, as far as I can see. Did he take this cue from her to initiate the attack immediately? Did he find some excuse not to pay just yet, so he could take control, and only let rip the moment he judged it was right for him? Or did he hand over the cash, do everything we know he did in that very limited time, and at some point - which point? - have the presence of mind to retrieve it?
Have a great weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz
P.S. Hi Chris,
Don't you start!  |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 05:25 am | | Hi David,
Jack was not "mentally stable" during the murders, otherwise he would not have murdered. Someone is mentally stable when he can not only tell left from right but also wrong from right. In so far there was "something" mentally wrong with him.
He would have seemed to have been "mentally stable" for an outsider. He was certainly not a raving lunatic with rolling eyes, lewd look and spit running from his lips. He was most likely one cool dude who did not stick out like a sore thumb. He was probably like every Tom, Dick and Harry in his appearence.
The murders themselves were quick and - as you stated - of low violence. There was no beating up beforehand. There was no throwing around of intestines. There were no large pools of blood. It probably took him somewhere between 30 and 240 seconds to murder his victims. Except for Kelly where he - if he even killed or mutilated her - spent more time. But even then 10 minutes maximum.
Jack murdered in a frenzy - no!
Philip |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 07:30 am | | Hi Joseph,
I fail to see how Jack used 'Brute Strength' against his victims.
In the case of Chapman we're dealing with a very sickly(actually dying) woman. She had been spotted, by a friend of hers, a couple of times during the day, heaped up against a wall, motionless. She was on the brink of starvation, so she was rather weak and easily brought down.(Some have surmised that she may not have been drunk at all that night, but just weak from lack of sustenance.)
Now in Eddowes case the thing that makes me think she put up a fight is the bruise on her hand, as well as the thimble found near her hand.(I believe she may have reached in her pocket for something to fend off her attacker.) You also must take into account that the killer mutilated her face, and to do so he would have had to grab hold of it, to efficently make the cuts.(I.E. he had to mess with the eyelids to cut them, and he had to hold onto the jaw, as he cut her face, so her head would not turn.) So essentially whatever way her face appeared in the mortuary, doesn't mean that's the way her face was when she actually died.
So 'Brute Strength' isn't exactly displayed in this case.(Although it does remain a possibility. Just no evidence of it.)
Hi Philip,
Does this mean a thief or burglar isn't 'mentally stable'? They steal, which according to society is wrong, but in their mind is right, because it is a means to an end. The same could be said about a murderer, even a serial killer.
To me 'mentally unstable' doesn't mean the person is a raving lunatic. But it also doesn't mean that the person only has a problem perceiving only ONE thing as being right(when society says it's wrong) or wrong(when said society says it's right). They have problems with many things in their lives. A trouble discerning black/white or right/wrong in many different aspects of their lives.(Such displays could be found in Kosminski.(By the way this isn't an attest that Kosminski is the Ripper, I'm just giving an example of the behavior.) He wasn't a raving lunatic, but was mentally unstable.)
So unless the Ripper had problems with many other aspects in his life(which could have brought more attention to himself, but also may not have) then I don't see how he was mentally unstable. He may have been a serial killer and a mutilator, but if that was the only problem he couldn't discern right from wrong, then he's not unstable. He's just a murderer.
Regards,
Chris H.
P.S. Awwww, come on Caz. I thought you would have found that cute! |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 10:16 am | | Joe, David, Philip, All,
We have only two crime scene photographs. JtR may have been calm, cool, organized and calculating, but there is evidence that he mutilated in a frenzy. Look at the blood stains on the wall of the infamous photograph. Some of the blood trails are three to four feet above the body. Kelly's corpse was one/two feet from the wall. If JtR was right handed, standing near the table or kneeling between Kelly's legs, he would have taken the knife to right shoulder level, swung and finished at the left shoulder level. Much like a tennis topspin forehand. IMHO the crime scene shows at least a momentary frenzy.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 11:44 am | | I do, I do, Chris, so help me!
But then I find a whole lot of things cute that others wouldn't.
Hi Kevin,
Did Jack have to pay Mary Kelly up front, do you reckon, before she let him into her humble abode, and before he worked himself into his frenzy? He'd have to have done unless she knew him well enough to trust him to pay later.
Afterwards, I guess he had all the time in the world to relax from his frenzy, stare into the fire and enjoy its warmth for a while, stash Mary's heart somewhere, coolly pocket the cash he had given her and saunter off home, whistling a merry tune.
Or would he have got the hell out of there sharpish, his mind still in a whirl?
I don't know any of the answers, or have any strong opinions either way, I'm just interested in what you and others think.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 01:30 pm | | Hi Caz,
As usual, you make a good argument. When did the money go down? Did she know /trust him? Did he start the fire? Was he aware that the police were thinking about using bloodhounds? Did he leave ASAP? Was he covered in blood? Did he have a bolthole? Did he have a lookout?
The crime scene photograph depicts such chaos, except for the tightly rolled bedding below Kelly's knee. If JtR was cold or needed light, why not put the rolled bedding in the fireplace? Again I think that if JtR set the fire, he may been trying to destroy his scent, fool the dogs. Maybe he tried to clean up with whatever rags that were available. Have a good weekend Caz.
Love,
Kevin |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 09:07 pm | | Hello Mr. Hintzen,
You wrote: In the case of Chapman we're dealing with a very sickly (actually dying) woman. She had been spotted, by a friend of hers, a couple of times during the day, heaped up against a wall, motionless.
You describe the murderer's strength in terms of the victim's health. My evaluation of the murderer's strength is based on the descriptions of the bruises, and wounds found on four homicide victims (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes), and the minimum level of physical strength necessary to inflict those traumas with-in the given time frames. The victim's were on the receiving end of the strength issue; their physical condition doesn't alter the killer's degree of power. Furthermore, your description of the victim's poor state of health tends to support the perspective I explained in my post of Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 12:43 pm: Generally, he used his well nourished strength against comparatively weaker victims, he quickly and brutally murdered them, and with an equally brutal physical force, he quickly mutilated their bodies, and got the hell out of there. Using your train of logic to rationalize that comparison says: if Ms. Chapman's physical condition had deteriorated to the point where she couldn't manage to walk and spit simultaneously, than his strength would have been increased. My assessment speaks to the state of the killer's strength in terms of his own conditions; therefore, the victim's health is immaterial to that observation.
The second sentence from your Friday, 14 June 2002 - 07:30 am post quoted above states: She had been spotted, by a friend of hers, a couple of times during the day, heaped up against a wall, motionless.[sic] You imply that an undetermined amount of time had lapsed between the sightings by Ms. Chapman's friend, Ms. Amelia Palmer. Obviously, the greater the passage of time between the two sightings (Casebook, 2002: Victim's Page, Annie Chapman), the greater her degree of weakness appears, (e.g. if she had been sitting there motionless for two or more hours, she would indeed be in a very poor state of health), if this scenario were accurate, it would lend support to your proposition that Ms. Chapman's enfeebled condition diminished her ability to resist even the weakest of murderers, unfortunately, this is not the case.
Saturday, 7 September, 5 pm: Amelia Palmer, sees her on Dorsett St. She states: Annie says she is too ill to do anything. Ms. Palmer left her company, but returned a few minutes later only to find Chapman not having moved. It's no use my giving way," Annie says "I must pull myself together and go out and get some money or I shall have no lodgings. " 7 September -11:30 pm: Annie returns to the lodging house and asks permission to go into the kitchen. (Casebook, 2002: Victim's Page, Annie Chapman)
The time frame between the two meetings stated above, is given in minutes. If this is a Casebook paraphrase of the official inquiry transcripts than the idea of a few minutes could reasonably span between one and twenty nine minutes; more than this amount of time may have simply been referred to as a half an hour. It's also reasonable to refer to less than a half hour as a few minutes.
I included the 7 September -11:30 pm report to contrast Ms. Chapman's reported mobility against your argument of disability. Apparently, she had enough energy to get up and walk out of the area, and not be seen again for over five hours. She may have very well sat in a nearby ally and slept undetected for the duration of those five hours or, she may have periodically walked about the neighborhood, in any event, there is nothing in Amelia Palmer's testimony to sustain your notion that Ms. Chapman was immobilized for any great length of time, and therefore, no independent corroboration to support your assumption that her physical condition had deteriorated to the point of her defenselessness. Therefore, she remained capable of fighting for her life.
Regarding Catherine Eddowes you wrote: Now in Eddowes case the thing that makes me think she put up a fight is the bruise on her hand, as well as the thimble found near her hand. Mr. Hintzen, I fail to see how a thimble without a brass cross guard, a leather wrapped handle, and a razor-sharp, thirty six inch, double edged blade would prove useful to anyone as a defensive weapon; unless, of course, it's a full body thimble.
Of all the victims attributed to the Whitechapel Murderer, Catherine Eddowes was the healthiest, and most physically fit. She is well nourished, and reasonably well exercised in comparison to the other victims, has a reputation for a bad temper, and could probably kick my ass. Friends spoke of Catherine as an intelligent, scholarly woman but one who was possessed of a fierce temper. (See Casebook Victim's Page: Catherine Eddowes, for a full description of her diet, and physical prowess)
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, the London police surgeon, was called to the murder scene, and arrived at 2:00 am, shortly after Ms. Eddowes body was found. At the inquiry he stated: We looked for superficial bruises and saw none. After washing the left hand carefully, a bruise the size of a sixpence, recent and red, was discovered on the back of the left hand between the thumb and first finger. (Paraphrase, Casebook, 2002: Victim's Page, Catherine Eddowes) Is this statement the source of your conjecture that she may have reached into her apron for a weapon?
You also wrote: You also must take into account that the killer mutilated her face, and to do so he would have had to grab hold of it, to efficiently make the cuts.(I.E. he had to mess with the eyelids to cut them, and he had to hold onto the jaw, as he cut her face, so her head would not turn.) So essentially whatever way her face appeared in the mortuary, doesn't mean that's the way her face was when she actually died.
Your argument that the killer had to grab hold of her face to efficiently make the cuts mutilate it) relies on this single requirement to invalidate my speculation that her face, as it appears in the morgue photos, was a blank slate, betraying no surprise etc.. There are other claims that could influence the logic of your conditional argument, each has a varying degree of possibility.
For instance: her head could have been steadied by the hand of a third party, or the killer might have used his foot, or his knee; he may have carried a pair of fire-place thongs, and used these to steady her head. He may have had a two prong pitchfork wide enough to fit her head in the middle, or he may have used two cinder blocks instead. Regardless of how precarious the truth value of my speculation rests on this issue, your argument is only one of many possible explanations, no more valid than mine.
You haven't presented any compelling arguments that would convince me to alter my point of view. Accordingly, whether the use of brute strength is apparent to you or not, my understanding of its use in the Whitechapel Murders remains unchanged.
Best regards for a good weekend to all, |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 11:31 pm | | Joseph,
Thanks for a well-considered response. I think you challenge me best with your point about the idiot savant. My response is that the murderer was not psychotic, he did not have any internal voices. He was not retarded, delusioned, or physically injured or impaired in any way. He had a steel trap mind, sound as a dollar. I think he could not have continued the murder series leaving no evidence and making no mistakes leading to his capture if he were impaired in any of these ways. The evidence indicates an unnaturally excellent murder and mutilation system, repeatedly executed with inhuman machine-like efficiency. There are just no mistakes anywhere. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that his perversity was precisely his perfection as a murderer. Where does this leave you?
I see only Fido as having a position on the case that could reasonably beat mine--I don't say he does beat me, only that he could. Fido thinks of the murderer as being in a short-lived and very marginal state when committing the murders. Fido would make a great Casting Director. He casts Kaminsky/Cohen in the role, a syphillitic and organically breaking down. The cataclysmic breakdown phase occurs for just long enough for him to be insane enough to want to commit these murders but still sane enough to execute them flawlessly and get away with it. For Fido, the murderer is like an old-fashioned radio--you remember the kind I mean, with vacuum tubes. If you had your set well warmed up, you could quickly switch it off and then, for a few seconds, you would still hear the station. This is because the vacuum tubes were so inefficient and massive they maintained a residual charge for a little while. This is a neat trick by Fido in my opinion--by it he can both explain what seems inexplicable in the evidence, and finger Kaminsky/Cohen at the same time--K/C actually finished losing his mind right after the Kelly murder.
I differ from Fido in that I think the murderer had to have something more than merely sufficient sanity to do what he did by the evidence. I think of this quality as an humongous innate perversity.
David |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 11:50 pm | | PS Joseph--
My idea of idiot savantism is that of the subject being able to do one thing astonishingly well, but he can't learn anything else in life. E.g., the fellow who totally memorizes the calendar--give him any date, say, August 18 in the year 884556, and he can instantly tell you it will be a Wednesday. Or the fellow who can play one very difficult piece on the piano, but can't play anything else, or do anything else, such as read, drive a car, carry on a normal conversation, etc. I think the Ripper just couldn't have been an idiot savant, because he had to deal with dynamical situations in committing the murders--he had to think fast on many levels. Plus, he had to have good social and communication skills.
David |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 04:49 am | | Hi All
Something triggered Jack to murder these women. Something made him leave a state of "mental stability" and turned him into a killer. Not every man who is turned down by a whore or who sees a whore turns into a vicious killer. I am not a big fan of Freud, but some of his theories are close to the truth. In the moments of the killings his "ES" took over which leads to a state of mentall instability. If we could find the trigger we could find the man.
We may only have one crime scene photo, but we have photos of the other dead victims. None of them show signs of a killer killing in a frenzy. There are no wild cuts, there is no slashing and - if we can believe the reports - the crime-scenes were left in a tidy state. The cuts and the mutilations seem to have been made with a purpose. They are not wild. Jack would have been very calm while performing otherwise a lot of the cuts would be wilder and larger.
Jack was certainly no idiot. His IQ would surely have been in the range of 110 to 130. Fast thinking, cunning and very daring. He was able to plan his killings. I am sure that if he had been caught other instances would have popped up when he did not kill a whore, because his intellect told him: NO - TOO DANGEROUS! We are not looking for a low-life sailor or handyman, but for somebody who could have made a lot out his life, but never did. I personally think he could mix with other people. That he was a loner. Someone like Geoffrey Boycott - great in his field but an arse when it came to mixing with others.
Philip |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 01:43 pm | | Mr. Dowe,
1. What is "ES"?
2. I think you are making progress toward being right in what you say about the murderer, but still have a few inconsistencies. It appears you think magically concerning the mental aspect. If the murderer were suffering any significant mental symptoms, how could he have repeatedly pulled off these murders? Why do the murder scenes indicate an absence of disorganization? Show me specifically where the notion of mental instability is evidenced on the level of the crime scenes. Where does the murderer start whooping and hollering as he is mutilating? Where does he fling internal organs around? Where does he strike too soon or tary too long at a murder site and expose himself? Where does he kill anybody in any other way but silently, so as to invite detection? Where does he strike inefficiently, giving the woman time to scream or defend herself? Where does he act in any way other than in a purposeful manner? I believe you think magically in that on the one hand you have no explanation for the murders other than to believe that he was mentally ill, but on the other hand you ascribe mental competence to him so as to enable the murders to be carried out. It seems to me pace Fido you can't have it both ways without violating logic.
David |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 02:25 pm | | The killer was calm, controlled, methodical, confident, experienced, efficient & alert and he had purpose.
He knew what he wanted and took it.
Why?....why?......thats the mystery.
Not a religious maniac, not seized by any overbearing sexual desire, not a deluded lunatic, not possessed by hatred, not hell-bent on reformation.
Just what the evidence suggests to me.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 02:58 pm | | Hi David,
Do you consider David Berkowitz, New York's notorious .44 caliber killer, aka Son of Sam, an idiot savant?
He seems to fit your criteria as a killer stalking the city, while the authorities had increased patrols and set up traps, yet he evaded capture and continued to assault.
Was the Yorkshire Ripper also an idiot savant? He also eluded capture.
I believe, the Whitechapel murderer was never captured for two very obvious reasons: the investigatory techniques of the time were not as advanced and because the murderer's reign of terror lasted a relatively brief time.
Most serial killers evade capture. That does not make them brilliant. It is very difficult to capture those who murder strangers. Sadly, serial killing is a very easy thing to do.
The serial killers who eventually are captured are either arrested on unrelated charges and then the murders are tied to them or do to the sheer volume of their attacks eventually a mistake is made.
The Whitechapel murderer only killed a handful of people that we know of - then the murders ceased. Most of the serial killers captured have already slain far more.
The Whitechapel murderer may have not been all that bright - one plausible explanation for the cessation of the murders was that he was incarcerated for some other offense. That doesn't indicate the killer was an intellect.
One might theorize that the killer died, was incapacitated, moved on, or simply decided to stop killing (this I would consider the least likely). We just don't know.
Making this murderer out to be some cunning, intelligent character harkens back to Donald McCormack - whose work has been thoroughly repudiated.
The Whitechapel murderer might have been intelligent - but there is nothing in his crimes to indicate so.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 03:31 pm | | Actually the theory by Donald McCormick is of no worth because of inbuilt innacuracies and the fact he based it on unsuportable evidence, namely the works of Dr. Dutton, William Le Queux and Rasputins manuscript.
Nothing at all to do with the abilities of the real killer suggested by witness testimony & medical evidence.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
