|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 14 December 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
JACK THE RIPPER MYSTERY SOLVED!:
Archive through 14 December 2002
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 10:24 pm |        | Hi Peter,
I have one problem with your theory. If JTR intended to simply clean his knife and hands on Eddowes apron he would have done so while it was intact on the victim. He would not have cut a large piece from the apron with the sole intention of wiping his hands and knife on it only to leave it by the body.It was certainly not cut off by accident.
No other victim had a piece of clothing cut away in such a manner nor was there evidence to show that the killer wiped his knife or hands on any intact garment on a victim.He had a purpose in taking that piece of apron because he had a use for it hence this change in his MO. Also we know he did not leave Mitre Square and go straight to Goulston Street as Christopher has correctly explained. If the killer was such a disorganized raving madman as some would have us believe then nothing can be said of those who tried in vain to catch him under such circumstances. It stands to reason that he was never caught because he was far too clever for the opposition.If those hunting the killer had acertained his true motive I am convinced he would have been caught.They were far too busy looking for a likely suspect rather than the motive.This brings to mind Patricia Cornwell inasmuch that she was given a likely suspect and proceeded to fit him up.The amount of times I have seen this happen in various criminal cases at first hand and suffice to add that it has also happened quite often in high profile murder cases.Sickert was very lucky that Mr Grieves was not at the Yard at the time because as Grieves stated he would have had Sickert before the court. Jesus and to think we still have men like that at the top it just goes to show, they must find them in christmas crackers wearing funny hats with jokes attached to them. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 11:11 pm | | Hi Chris,
To be honest several of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard concerning the ripper case have been expressed by Miss Cornwell.
No 1. His motive for the murders.
No 2. The accusation that he killed dozens of women including children.
No 3. That he wrote most of the hoax letters.
No 4. He must be the killer because he painted pictures which ( in her view ) look like the victims.
Let us not kid ourselves here for if any poster placed such ideas on this board we know what the end result would be so little wonder that she keeps away from posting!!!Yet crazy as it may be Miss Cornwall after spending millions of dollars to reach such unfounded conclusions has no problem in getting a publisher to place such twaddle in print.The moral of this story surely relates to the power of money and what can be achieved by it.
In relation to the Lusk and Openshaw letters I intend to research them in greater depth now.Jeff Bloomfield sent me a rather interesting piece comparing the actions of Dr.Cream with those of D'Onson which I included in the book. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 11:28 pm | | Hi, Ivor
I know you're addressing Peter, so please pardon my interruption. Why do we know the killer didn't go straight to Goulston Street? Because of P.C. Long's testimony? My impression is that he wasn't a great cop. I say this because he doesn't seem to have been the most observant person (he forgets to bring his notes to the inquest, for example, has to leave to retrieve them, and the coroner doesn't seem to have thought too highly of him, either). Wasn't Long fired for drinking on duty a year or so later? Also, on such an overcast night (I believe cloud cover was 100 percent), wouldn't it have been easy to have missed the apron at 2:20?
I also think the scenario of JTR hearing footsteps, cutting the apron piece, and making a hasty exit, wiping as he walked away is plausible. Mitre Square to Goulston Street--that's an indication of how dirty he got after killing Eddowes (excrement was something else not present at the Chapman killing, I think. That's why he needed the apron).
These are just some questions I had reading thru some of the above posts. Now, Ivor--you may be familiar with enough of my posts to realize that I'm wrong pretty much always, so take it easy on me if you reply.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 12:01 am | | Hi David,
Your comments are most welcome I assure you and I fully understand your comments about Long but we must remember that we have other police evidence which backs his statement up.There is also a missing time from when the killer left Berner St to the time Eddowes was seen at the entrance to Church/St James passage.
I believe he went to ground at a bolt hole near the centre after leaving Berner Street and Mitre Square.This explains the missing times and it makes a lot of sense.Eddowes was found soon after she was killed and if I were the killer I would go to ground as soon as possible after leaving Mitre Square. I certainly would not be walking the streets ( with evidence which could convict me ) heading towards Goulston Street minutes after the huy and cry went up.As for being wrong David dont worry about that because none of us are right all of the time regardless of who we may be so you are in good company. A lot is to be said for someone who admits they are not always right and I would rather listen to such a person than to someone who thought they were never wrong.
PS. Someone with three cats cannot be that wrong :-) |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 03:36 am | | | As to whether the apron was taken to clean hands or carry a kidney,is debateable,but what if the intention was to do both.It was a large piece of apron and after wrapping the kidney there would be much of the apron left to wipe hands and knife.It is after all an itemm that when in fashion was used to both hold items and wipe hands,and this could have suggested itself to the killer who felt a need to do both. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 07:48 am | | Hi Harry,
That's more or less what I suggested as a possible reason when Ivor posed his question. I thought that maybe Jack had found escaping from the Chapman scene with messy hands, knife and dripping body parts was not ideal, and therefore when he found himself in a similar position with Eddowes, he saw for the first time the use he could make of his victim's clothes, in this case the large apron.
Of course, my suggestion could be totally lacking in logic, and horribly wrong, but it was offered in a friendly spirit to Ivor, with the usual touch of Caz humour, and not with any intention of causing offence. In fact, I still can't help being rather fond of the old dear, despite getting this delightful response:
'Hi Caz you wimpy burger, If you had half a brain you would be dangerous as for your logic you have none.Shape up or ship out and stop behaving like a "ripperologist's play thing" and get a life.'
I obviously rub him up the wrong way for some reason. But if my posts come across to him as so offensive, does he ever stop to ask himself what his responses sound like?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rodney Gillis
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 12:59 pm | | I have always believed the piece of apron served two purposes.
1. Jack wants at least his fingers to be clean before using the chalk so that the chalk remains bright and is easy to read.
2. The piece of apron is a validation that the killer was indeed also the author (as Ivor has mentioned).
Rod |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 01:52 pm | | Caz,
My response had nothing to do with the content of your post as such it was simply directed at your comment to me, "Hi Ivor, my disorganised friend,"
PS. Do not feel the need trying to explain to me the logic of such a remark. |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 02:47 pm | | | Apparently, my delete action did not go through last night. As Caz has repasted it and I don't plan to delete dozens of posts responding, I will say simply: Ivor knock it off. |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 03:00 pm | | It should be noted that Ivor's impertinent comments to Caz also involved me. He trashed her for "having less sense than David," meaning me, David Radka.
So, Ivor, as the Moderator says, "Knock it off."
David |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 04:55 pm | | Na na na na No Stallion!
Old Jacky boy wasn't bent over Kate Eddowes in Mitre Square, ripping her guts out - and at the same time thinking "Hmm, I must take a piece of this apron with me, so that when I write that graffiti in Goulston Street them dastardly coppers will know it was me wot done it".
The apron could have got ripped during the attack, maybe Jack cut it with his knife, maybe he ripped it with his hands whilst trying to get through the several layers of clothing Eddowes wore.
Who knows?
Jack didn't specifically cut the piece of apron to wipe his hands/knife on - it just happened to be there.
He didn't take the apron to hide the kidney, that's just daft.
The message in Goulston Street had to be from Jack, unless you subscribe to Martin Fido's theory that the graffiti was already there and could have been there for some time.
One problem with that: If it had been there for some time why hadn't the jews who lived in the building kicked off over it?
It stands to reason then that Jack wrote the graffiti and dropped the piece of apron there because it was convenient to do so, not as any part of a master plan to communicate with the fuzz.
Ivor: You've been taking them stupid pills again, haven't you? Calm down old boy, or else you'll give yourself a stomach ulcer and be joining Ronnie, Reggie and Jack the Hat in that great prison in the sky before too long.
Big up.
Peter |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 05:49 pm | | Peter,
I get the impression that you believe JTR was not thinking ahead of the game and that his actions ( including the murders) were committed on the spur of the moment is that correct?
If someone had written the message a day or so before the double event then where is the logic that it would have caused a riot ? Someone wrote on a wall, The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.Why would anyone connect this with the murders ?The answer is simple they would not.It was only the apron piece which connected it to the murders to start with. The message on its own could stand to interpret any number of things.The content of the message does not inform the reader what it was that the Juwes will be blamed for. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 06:00 pm | | Not at all.
I think he planned to go out to murder. I think there were times he went out and there just wasn't the opportunity.
On the other hand, the opportunity presented itself and he took it. He had to adapt to the particular circumstances, location, lighting etc.
What's your point?
Peter |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 06:07 pm | | Ronnie and Jack McVitie meeting up in the great hereafter. Now *that's* a rematch I'd like to see.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 06:59 pm | | Peter, My point is simple either this guy was a very careful planner and had everything worked out to the very last detail or he was simply killing on speculation, ie going out and taking pot luck and plenty of chances.In short he was never caught because he was either very lucky or very careful. I believe he planned his murders down to the very last detail and that the planning of the Graffito was worked out well in advance of the murder of Eddowes.He did not drop off the apron piece because it was convenient to do so (we have evidence that he never went straight to Goulston Street from Mitre square) he dropped it off because he wanted the Graffito to be connected to him through the piece of apron which was placed by the Graffito and each piece of evidence supported the other.
You wrote that Jack wrote the Graffito yet it was not part of a plan regarding the police if this is so then who was the writing intended for and why was it written? |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 08:37 pm | | Hi, Ivor:
You are not quite on the money in saying that the murderer "planned his murders down to the very last detail." I realise this is a figure of speech but I am going to take it at face value.
What you say can't be so, Ivor, because the killer couldn't know which woman he would meet on a particular night, if circumstances would be right for the crime, if he would be interrupted, etc., etc. For example, on the night of the Double Murder, at Dutfield's Yard during the murder of Elizabeth Stride, he was interrupted by Diemschutz, and had to rethink his plan for the night. I think it would be more correct to say, and perhaps this better characterizes your thinking, Ivor, than the blanket statement you made, that, rather the murderer had a plan but adapted it to circumstances as he went along.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 09:00 pm | | "...on the night of the Double Murder, at Dutfield's Yard during the murder of Elizabeth Stride, he was interrupted by Diemschutz, and had to rethink his plan for the night."
On what is this assumption based? I can't find a shred of evidence that the arrival of Diemschutz caused the murderer to flee.
Assumptions make for too loose a Ripperology.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 10:14 pm | | Hi Christopher,
I am not saying that he knew the women in person ( that we will never know ) but he knew he was going to kill from a certain class of female.He knew the areas from where he was going to pick up his victims and he planned where he was going to kill them.They did not take him to the sites. One only has to look at the layout of the 5 sites to realize it was all well planned out in advance. The sites are all laid out in exactly the same manner from the main junction!!!
What I mean by "down to the last detail" is that he knew where,when,and how.He also knew a lot more besides in relation to what his movements were to be and the routes he was going to take. He knew in advance when and where the Graffito was to be written and I believe he also knew about the police beat times.This view was also shared by others at the time including elements of the press namely The News Of The World.
JTR was aware of the steps which were being taken to catch him and he counter acted them.I should have stated that he had it planned down to the last detail as the situation would allow.Of course we know about the best laid plans of mice and men but in the rippers case his planning worked in his favour because he achieved his objective regardless of all the odds against him. As for the killer being disturbed by Diemschutz I certainly do not abide with that theory and there is no evidence to show that the killer was disturbed by Deimschutz.Only two reasons have ever been given as to why the killer was disturbed.
No 1. The horse shied which is no evidence the killer was there.
No 2. Stride was not mutilated.
Diemschutz neither heard nor saw anyone.
The killer may have had no intention to mutilate Stride and when we look at the precarious nature of this site with people coming and going and the time factor needed to perform the mutilations it is most unlikely that any mutilations were ever intended.Not forgetting of course that Schwartz saw the attack and fled and as far as the killer was aware Schwartz could be back within minutes with the police so mutilations were out of the question anyway.The killer only had time to cut her throat and then get the hell out of it as soon as possible.I do not believe the attacker was the killer and the police in some instances also held this view.As far as I am concerned the man in the doorway was the killer rather than the attacker.I cover this situation at far greater depth in my book. As far as planning goes I believe that these murders were among the best planned by any murderer.It is beyond me as to why anyone would believe that JTR was some dumb Jewish madman rushing around out of control in a blood lust killing on sheer speculation. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 10:39 pm | | Hi, Ivor:
I believe both you and I agree on the cunning of this murderer. Thanks for agreeing with me that the killings were planned so far "as the situation would allow."
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 04:22 am | | Hi Ivor,
Here's the 'logic' of my remark - a quick recap for you:
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 12:18 am
P.P.S. All you Eddowes apron people; I'll have to profile you as 'disorganized'.... get thee to tother board :-)
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 07:26 am
Hi Ivor, my disorganised friend,
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 03:10 pm
Hi Caz you wimpy burger, If you had half a brain you would be dangerous as for your logic you have none.Shape up or ship out and stop behaving like a "ripperologist's play thing" and get a life.
Now, do you see? RJ profiled you as ‘disorganized’ for introducing the apron into this thread, along with anyone who responded. It was the gentlest of tweaks, done with a smile. That’s why, in the very next post, I addressed you as ‘my disorganised friend’, because in responding to your question I was now your partner in disorganised crime – ie by not posting on ‘tother board’.
But don’t mind me. Carry on showing everyone the level of your reading and comprehension skills. I just find it all a hoot.
Have a great weekend Ivor, and everyone.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 05:19 am | | I believe what Ivor is pointing out,is that the situations as they evolved,was more due to the planning and control of the killer than just plain chance.
Even if the canonical victims appearance at the appointed places were more to chance than pre arranged,the killers knowledge of such persons habits and his knowledge of the locale would dictate that at some time,in such a place he would find a victim.
Let me give an example.When I visit England,I know I can stand at a certain place,in a certain city,at a certain time and be sure to encounter a number of old friends.I do not know which old friends it will be,but I am possitive of meeting some.
In Whitechapel in 1888,the same would have applied to the killer and his victims,therefor the killer would have been able to preplan his actions.
Chapman in Berner St,and the other victims at their locations may have been just one of a large number of unfortunates who frequented those areas.
Not hard in those circumstances,for a patient man to be sure of meeting one,and in a situation favourable for his intentions. |
Author: Ally
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 07:34 am | | Caz,
Maybe what Ivor objected to was being labeled as your 'friend' in public. Some people do have standards about that sort of thing.
Ally |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 01:37 pm | | | Caz, So now you know. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 02:02 pm | | Hi Harry,
Thank you for explaining the situation. When the killer left Berner Street he eventually headed in the direction of Mitre Square. St Botolphs Church was on this route and a two minute walk from Mitre Square. The Church was a well known spot for picking up prostitutes so after leaving Berner Street the killer would have known that he would have no trouble in picking one up near Mitre Square. Aldgate High Street and Leman Street were also a known haunts for prostututes and Rupert Street adjacent to Leman Street was one of the most notorious prostitute haunts in London.The Whitechapel Rd, Spitalfields, and many other areas were all easy places to pick up prostitutes and the killer never had far to look. Prostitutes were told to keep to the main roads by the police during the murders and every murder was in fact committed in a street off a main rd. The killer was simply picking up his victims from the main roads then slipping down a side road to kill them. He would then retrace his steps back on to the main road and get lost like a tree in a wood. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 04:20 pm | | Ivor,
What evidence is there to demonstrate what you are saying above? How do you know where the murderer met his victims? Except for Stride, we just don't know. How do you know what his route was from Berner Street to Mitre Square? He might have zigzagged from the first place to the second. How do we know he didn't ride a pogo stick, in other words?
Have a beer,
David |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 04:58 pm | | Ivor,
"They did not take him to the sites. One only has to look at the layout of the 5 sites to realize it was all well planned out in advance. The sites are all laid out in exactly the same manner from the main junction!!!"
With fresh blood on my hands (figuratively) from the fight over on the profiling thread, I saw this and had to disagree (I'm a snot like that.)
I don't find anything that points to pre-planning in the layout of the five sites themselves. They are laid out in exactly the same manner from the main junction but that does not have to be anything more than a coincidence - here's why.
Look at the victims: they are all prostitutes. What does a prostitute need to do her job? Well, first she needs her body. Check. Second she needs a John. Check. Third she needs a quiet, dark location where 1.) There aren't a lot of police walking around, 2.) There aren't a lot of random people who could interrupt walking around, 3.) Easy egress if there WERE police or people around, and 4.) Proximity to the main thoroughfares so she can get back out and get another John when she's done.
Each prostitute who has been out on the streets long enough is going to have a bunch of places scouted out ahead of time that are perfect for sex. Unfortunately, all the places that are perfect for sex are also perfect for murder.
By choosing to kill prostitutes, Jacky took a lot of stress off himself: all he needed to do was find a victim. The victim picked out her own death bed far in advance.
What nails it on the head to me as well is the proximity from the death scenes to the beds or lodgings of most of the victims. Most of the time, they were near each other - MJK's WAS the same place. If Jacky had scouted them out a head of time, he'd have killed in a much smaller boundary - one probably closer to his own lodgings.
B |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 05:56 pm | | David,
To get from Berner Street to Mitre Square JTR could have used two routes. The first would be to use the busy main Whitechapel Road and Aldgate High Street. The second route would be the back way down Fairclough Street across Backchurch Lane through all the back alleys.I have travelled all the routes myself ( except the back route which no longer exists ) many times and timed myself with a stopwatch and the routes I took were the most efficient in relation to time. Also the routes I took were so straight that anyone without any previous knowledge of the area could use them with no problem. The quickest way to travel between two points is in a straight line and time was of the essence to JTR. In short I put in years of research before coming to such conclusions also in my work I produce other evidence to support such a conclusion.As for the killer meeting his victims on the main roads the evidence to a certain degree points to it.I cover this subject at some depth in my book.Also he did not use a pogo stick they were not invented prior to the murders!!!! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 06:30 pm | | Brian,
I have more than just the layout of the sites to go on which has made me conclude that the murders were pre-planned. I suppose you may think it is a coincidence that the first four victims were killed at the four points of the compass, East,North,South,and West in that order. I suppose you may also feel it is also a coincidence about the following distances.
Victim 2------------930yds-------------- Victim 1
victim 2------------930yds-------------- victim 4
Victim 3------------950yds-------------- Victim 4
victim 4------------950yds-------------- victim 5
These distances are accurate to within two metres over 950yds on a O/S map scale 1/2500.
Victims 2,3,and 4 are to be found EXACTLY on the line of a 500yd circle the centre of which is located at the centre of the main junction.Such facts as these are only a part of my evidence which has made me draw such conclusions. If you believe the murders were not pre-planned and the sites were not pre-aranged by JTR then I have no intention of trying to change your mind on the matter. As I have already stated it was believed by many people at the time that JTR picked out the sites and knew about the police beat times on them. The News of the World advised the police to change all their beat times because they believed that such was the case. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 06:36 pm | | Ivor,
How did you determine the distances? Many of the sites are not extant and we aren't 100% sure of the exact locations of the victims?
Having the Ripper out with a ruler measuring distances, compass points, etc. is very complex - it seems simpler that he merely allowed the women to take him to their "special spots" and let him go to work.
I'm not being critical - just looking at this idea from the oft quoted point of view that the most complex, well-planned missions never survive first contact with the enemy. That's why when I was training to be a navy officer (bad knees kept me from being LT Brian now  ), they always taught us to "K.I.S.S - Keep it simple, stupid".
B |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 08:32 pm | | Brian,
We do know the exact locations of the victims 100%.Maps were used and distances were taken with a surveyers wheel in the field and no stone was left unturned to locate the exact spots on which the victims were found.Once this was achieved the next move was to transfer their exact locations onto period O/S maps. This is how the distances were determined by placing the exact locations on a period map scale 1/2500 ( for accuracy )in fact I have used far larger scale maps which I obtained from the British Library Map Room. What JTR did must be taken in the correct context.It was not as complex for JTR as it appears to be to us at first glance in fact in principle the method used was very simple for Jack and his plan covered all of his back doors.Standard Geometry is used to solve problems and sacred geometry takes the subject a great deal further.The basics are as follows.
He located an area he was familar with which had hundreds of rich pickings in the locality.What better place that Whitechapel and Spitalfields. He obtained a map of the area and placed his plans upon it using sacred geometry. The layout of the main roads worked to his advantage. He needed 4 sites to locate at the four points of the compass due to his motive. Once he had picked out the 4 sites on his map he visited them to see if they were suitable sites for his needs.His two main conciderations were cover and time.I know what you mean about complicated plans the more complicated they are the more that can go wrong.To him his plans were not complicated they may appear to be so to those with little or no knowledge of occult sacred geometry. It was a subject I knew nothing about and it took me years to work much of it out.In fact without the help of an expert with 50 years experience I doubt very much if I would have achieved what I did.Most of those that do know about certain aspects of the subject keep quiet about it.Also nothing is odd about a serial killer choosing his sites in advance or to plan his murders on a map.What sets these murders apart from those of a sexual serial killer is the motive. It is very hard to explain to people in a matter of minutes a situation which took me 9 years solid work to fathom out. |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 09:24 pm | | Christopher George,
I wonder if the reason Jack was not caught was because he was known to police,in a respected position,and would not likely be questioned. He
could have been a merchant from the area,cop,
doctor,politition , any of the above. His first murders were swift but not messy for him. Once he
got to Eddows,he got carried away, and therefore cut the apron to take away the organs and clean
himself up.He probably stashed the knife and body
parts + apron in a safe place, only to retrieve
same when the heat was off.He could therefore
saunter along saying his good evenings to the
police and residents. If he were a merchant, his
presence would not be questioned even though he may have been dressed as a gentleman.
As for organized vs disorganized, I would say his
crime scenes showed both.There have been instances
when both have been applied. I am a big fan of
profiling, Ressler ,John Douglas et al,and I know
there have been times when they have encountered
both org. & disorg.pertaining to an individual.
Unfortunately I can't recall these particular
criminals off the top of my head.Not only am I a
follower of Jack, I am a hugh fan of TRUE CRIME.
I read nothing else,and I seldom miss programs
like A & E eg.,that continuosly run true crime
stories.Maybe with Kelly,he decided to play it safe and kill indoors,because of the mess. Maybe!
I hope I haven't bored you to death with my posting.
Regardsjulie |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 05:25 am | | Hi, Julie:
Unlike others, I do accept Mary Jane Kelly as a Ripper victim and agree with you that he killed indoors because it was safer for him after the hue and cry following the night of the Double Murder. I always say that this was such a short murder series that it is hard to make hard and fast conclusions on the basis of such few crimes, so to say Jack would not have murdered indoors is nonsense. In the matter of whether Jack was organized or disorganized, the profilers themselves seem divided on this point. I know Douglas has, I think, said he was disorganized, however, Roy Hazelwood said he was "organized" on the basis that he brought a knife along with him to do the crimes!!! I also agree with you that Jack could have held a position in society that made him seem less like a suspect--doctor, preacher, vigilance committee member, or whatever. This status might have made him seem more reliable to the women on whom he preyed.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 07:03 am | | | Was Mary Kelly, the only young and attractive prostitute in all of the Spitalfields/Whitechapel area to have her own room to be murdered in, in private?. If so, then I can believe that Jack the Ripper, WHOEVER he was zeroed in on her and killed her. If she wasn't the only young woman to have her own room, why did the Ripper kill three or four old hags in the street,--in a series,-- then kill a beaut,--in comfort,--in private, and then stop!!. A real Serial Killer would have killed three or four or more young attractive girls with rooms of their own, is that organised or dis-organised?--I don't know, but there's a reason there |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 09:18 am | | | Something of slight interest, marginal interest, or, most likely, of no interest. But it now appears, after re-looking at the alumni lists of Oxford University, that 'Ronald' who graduated from Oxford in 1886, was, in fact, the son of George Macdonald, the translator of "Letters from Hell." Whether young Ronald ended back up north in a madhouse someone else will have to ascertain. It appears that he went to America in the mid 1890s, but then, didn't the Blackheath Cricket Club already teach us what "going abroad" really meant...? |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 10:14 am | | Warwick,
Read Dan Norder and my arguments for each side (me: disorganized, Dan: organized) in the profiling thread.
Despite Ivor's serious investigation of the layouts of the crime scenes, the simplest answer to why Jack killed where he did was that those were the places the prostitutes took their Johns to have sex. Mary Kelly just happened to have a room for it, and that made all the difference.
Disorganized killers do plan ahead sometimes. They are not so compulsive that they would just kill a victim in the middle of the street in front of the Queen.
One example of a disorganized killer killed four victims, and committed 2 other semi-related crimes before he was caught. In his first crime, he killed a woman in her house with a gun, then disembowled her, but animal feces in her mouth, and drank her blood. He then went over to another house, which was empty, and urinated on women's clothing and defecated in the house. Two days later, he killed a dog, with a gunshot wound to the head, and then disembowled it. His second, third and fourth murders occurred four days later, killing a man, a woman and a 22 month old infant. He merely killed the man and the infant with gunshots, then had his way with the woman, shooting and then disembowling her, and drinking the blood again.
This guy brought a gun to the scene, and then used a knife as well. He took his time with the bodies, etc. So he semi-planned the crimes, but in reality he merely killed whomever he saw first. This is what I think the Ripper did. That, combined with some other stuff I mention in the other thread makes him IMHO disorganized.
It's important to use the definitions that the FBI uses - not the normal definitions of the words here. Technically, both disorganized and organized killers demonstrate "organization" because both types of killings have been planned - or at least fantasized about or practiced on animals - for a long time before they are ever acted upon
As for stopping - that makes no sense. I'm not even going to start debating that one.
B |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 10:42 am | | | Brian: I have been reading with interest your repartee with Dan Norder....While I admire your defense of your argument,it appears that Jack was organized "enough" to get away as he did....So many points of the org/disorg. overlap,that it appears that perception=reality in the eye of the beholder. The terminology,"organized" versus "disorganized' may give people a false basis for assessing Jack to begin with...Perhaps,"competent" versus "incompetent" would be a better basis. Jack WAS competent enough to succeed,unfortunately. It is uncanny,at least to me,that the distances that Ivor Edwards has described in his book,regarding death sites,are such,as they appear to be premeditated...Brian,since Jack had at least one or two characteristics of an "organized" killer,should he not then be deemed as an organized murderer? Fire away,bro' !! Howard |
Author: julienonperson
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 12:01 pm | | Hi Christopher,
Thanks for the response. I think without a doubt
that if Jack did work in the area or had reason
to frequent the area, he no doubt was familiar
with the prostitutes. It stands to reason that
under the circumstances above, he would have also
known that Kelly had a room. He didn't choose her
for her youth or looks,just her room for privacy.
He sure wasn't choosey look or age wise when it
came to his other victims. She drank at various
pubs, and no doubt patrons and workers at these
pubs would have heard her more than once arrange
a trist at her residence. She may also have more
than once given out her address to men who were
reluctant to go with her directly from the pub,
but would no doubt later look her up.These men
would not have wanted their wives to get wind of
their infidelities nor would they want business
associates or customers,to think that they were
low enough to go with these low life creatures.
It if possible also that in a state of drink she
may very possibly have been overheard by jack, whilst trying to pick up another John. There are so many possibilties.Jack hated them,no question.
Organized or disorganized isn't going to tell us
who Jack is.There are probably just as many of the
current suspects that are organized as there are
disorganized.The case against certainly cannot be
based on this, I don't think.
regardsjulie |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 01:48 pm | | I'd like to commend Ivor on his street measurements from one crime scene to another. I think the significance of his observations is more that the murderer was very likely a local man than that he pre-planned his crime scenes in order to form a picture pattern. We have reason to believe, based on the profiling work of many professionals who have seriously studied sexual serial murderers, that their crime scenes often do take on something of a shape bearing relation to a home base. Home likely would have been somewhere in the murder district. To believe this of the Whitechapel murderer we need add very little to the concrete evidence of the crimes, and really nothing that hasn't been critically evaluated concerning the actions of persons of the murderer's type. This is the logical attractiveness of the idea.
David |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 05:37 pm | | On the previous thread to this RJP had given
out an article from the NY Times of 1897
that suggested the killer was in an asylum
and was a descendant connected to a woman who
saved a King's life in Scottish History, and
whose wife was descended from a famous English
Admiral.
General concenses was that the killer was
descended from Flora MacDonald of Skye, who helped
"Bonnie Prince Charlie" flee his native lands
forever after the failure of the invasion of 1745
to 46. The big problem about this is that
Prince Charles Stuart was not the Jacobite
pretender to the throne in 1746, but the son of
the "Old Pretended" James Stuart (known to
Jacobites as King James III). All this is true,
but after James Stuart died in 1766, Prince
Charles became (for Jacobites) King Charles III
of Great Britain. A bit premature for 1746, but
he did get the title of King for his followers.
His death in 1788, led to his brother, Cardinal
Henry Stuart, becoming for the Jacobite faithful
King Henry IX until his death in 1807.
While I am inclined to support Flora as the most
likely candidate for the role of king saving,
Scottish history is full of tragically killed
monarchs. These include James I, James III,
Duncan. The thing to look for are those who
survived assasination attempts or fatal situations. King James VI of Scotland (James I
of England) was kidnapped, chased at knife point,
and victim (?) of a memorable Scottish mystery,
the Gowrie Conspiracy of 1600 [though some have
suggested James actually was avenging an old family vendetta against the Master of Gowrie and
his brother in this case]. He also was narrowly
able to avoid being blown up with the English
Parliament by Guy Fawkes in 1605. His grandsons
Charles II and the future James II were nearly
murdered in the Rye House Plot of 1683. There
are plenty of possibilities.
The same thing is true about the English Admirals.
Nelson came to mind, but it might be
Collingwood,
Hardy (as in "Kiss me Hardy")
Duncan,
Howe,
Bligh (yeah, really. He died "Vice Admiral
William Bligh" in 1817. His children were
daughters).
Anson,
Kemperfeldt,
Benbow,
Penn
Carew,
Shovell
Nelson came to mind because his name springs up
to people who know little of British Naval History. But there are other names who are well
known. And some have interesting descendants -
"My father...was a lawyer....He was of English
stock and one of his ancestors was close to
Admiral Nelson. You may remember that when Nelson was dying on the deck of his ship, one
of his last words were, "Kiss me Hardy" to his
aide - de - camp. I can trace my ancestry
directly back to that Hardy."
That was from a transcript used by John McCabe
in his biography MR. LAUREL & MR. HARDY. It was
from Oliver Hardy back in the 1950s. The comedian was a descendant of the Admiral.
One wonders if the novelist and poet, Thomas
Hardy, was related to Admiral Hardy as well.
I am not suggesting him as our candidate, but
he is a poet. He never spent was in an insane
asylum, however.
Jeff |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 06:19 pm | | Howard,
I'm glad you are enjoying it. The boards are a great way to learn diplomacy.
As for the overlapping - that's the problem with profiling. It's not an exact science, and that causes problems.
Overall, while I agree with both you and Dan that the Ripper did demonstrate a number - albeit few - of organized traits, he hits more of the disorganized ones. Throw in my opinion that the Lusk letter was genuine - and looking at the language, style and substance - he appears more likely to be disorganized, to me.
Then again, I may be wrong.
B |
|
|
|
|
