|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 25, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Clues Left By The Suspect::
Archive through November 25, 1999
Author: Officer Herndon
Friday, 06 August 1999 - 10:35 am |        | Dear Panel Members,
I am a 33 year old Police Officer in Central California and this is my first visit to the board. I have only been looking into the JTR case for the past 12 hours and I have read nothing here as of yet. Having worked in quite a few less celebrated criminal investigations, I wanted to share with you my thoughts on the case.
First, the accepted JTR killings took place on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. This would seem typical for one who was gainfully employed. I believe there is a significance to the underlined excerpts from his writings and I am still working this out in my mind. I am also using days of the year expired, and days to come, as a means of possibly computing some form of numerical message that may be hidden here in hopes that it would reveal somthing about the killer. The phrase "The Juwes are the men That Will be blamed for nothing" is said (from internet sources) to have the capital letters "TJ" and "TW" contained therin. Of course, much of this is speculation on my part, but I wanted to share these "feelings" with the panel before I read too much about the case. I also need to find a photo of the Kelly Crime Scene, which I saw only briefly on the History Channel last night. My schedule keeps me away from the PC quite a bit, but anyone is encouraged to E-Mail me about this topic.
Very Truly Yours
Robert Herndon |
Author: Officer Herndon
Friday, 06 August 1999 - 03:09 pm | | Here is something, probably insignificant, but nonetheless I wanted to share it with you. If you convert days of the week (killings) into the corresponding letters of the english alphabet, you end up with "E F G E." If the same is done with the Months of the killings, you get "H I I K." I am curious as to the difference this would pose in Latin? Numerically, the months give you "89911" and weekdays (calling Saturday the 7th day) would yield "5675."
The following words are capitalized in his "Juwes" writings: "TJ" "TW". Underlined words and phrases include: "am a Yid," "ha ha," "right," "red," "and even then." Please feel free to E-Mail me as my schedule makes it difficult to visit the board often. Thank you all for your time.
Very Truly Yours
Robert Herndon |
Author: Wolf
Saturday, 07 August 1999 - 12:05 am | | Officer hendon, much of what you have asked about has already been scrutinized over the last one hundred and elevin years. At first I wondered if you were one of the regular postees trying to make a joke with a nieve look at the Ripper case but now it seems that you are genuinely asking questions that have been answered in the past.
I think that it is safe to say that any numerical question asked is a waste of time, the fact that the Ripper killed on weekends or public holidays does indicate a killer who was employed but to try and give some sort of value to the dates is futile. The so called letters written by the killer are useless because by consensus it is believed that none of them are genuine, a view point shared by the police of the day. As for the grafitti, it also has been deemed as being written by someone other than the killer.
I would advise you to read as much as you can about the killings and to submit your two cents worth but 13 hours of study is not nearly enough to make an educated observation. I have been doing this for 27 years and I still don't understand everything about this case.
Wolf. |
Author: Christopher George
Saturday, 07 August 1999 - 07:09 am | | Hi, Officer Herndon:
I am preparing a paper on the Jack the Ripper letters for the convention on the Whitechapel murders to be held in Park Ridge, New Jersey, April 8-9, 2000. I was interested in your comments on possible significance of the underlinings in the letters and capitalization in the Goulston Street graffito. I have to say, though, that in my opinion, these oddities in these writings are not significant. People in the last century capitalized differently to the way we capitalize, and the underlining again is partly a period device and for emphasis. I have examined many manuscripts from the last century that have similar underlining and capitalization, and I do not think these letters or graffito supposedly from the killer have any special significance in these features. As has been pointed out to you, there is also substantial doubt as to the genuineness of the letters and the graffito. Were any of the letters from the killer? Was the graffito from the killer? We just cannot be sure.
Chris George
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/cp_conference_on_jtr/ |
Author: mat
Thursday, 21 October 1999 - 01:57 pm | | To offiser Herdon,
In Calafornia the state you live in do they have
the death penalty, email me the anser to- matthewbeardsworth@hotmail.com |
Author: Jeff D
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 01:55 am | | Hello All !
I am just wondering whether it was possible that the victims were given some kind of gift by the Ripper, as part of some pre-selection process or a simple device for disarming the victim, putting her at ease for later, when the opportunity arose for him to approach them again.
We all know that poor Polly Nichols had a hat that hadn't been seen before. Considering the Chapman murder scene, with the statement about the contents of Annie's pockets being emptied out, and placed in a neat pile "as if by design". Could the Ripper have given Annie something that he desperately wanted to retrieve ? He did appear to take Annie's cheap rings also.
Then we have Eddowes. The contents of her skirt pockets were also laid out onto the pavement weren't they ? or at the very least, there was mention of the intestine that was placed as if by some kind of design. Maybe the cigarette case or something was a gift of some sort. Maybe even the shawl. Then Kelly, did the murderer maybe give her a red (silk or something) handkercheif ? I have seen other references to red scarves or handercheifs, maybe someone could enlighten me further. Could she have possibly been promised a gift or the answer that would ease her rather significant debts. She certainly was happy (OK melencholy, maybe) enough to be singing to herself on her last night, as was Eddowes. Basically, I get the impression that the murder itself, would not have been the first time the victim had been face-to-face with her killer.
The thing is, when I consider the murder scene, they all look (to me) as though the Ripper was looking for something. We all know that robbery was not a motive, though I'm not sure if all the victims had any money or valued possession on their person when they were found, but still, it does look as though he was looking for something. I'm not sure whether I can decide if he was looking for something inside the body, or outside, but he did go through the victims pockets, and/or lay out megre possessions on the pavement where he could didn't he ?
Loads of ifs and maybe's in my writings I know, but coments from anyone who would have a better idea of the real facts of the murder scene itself would be very welcome. I'm still looking to see if I can determine what the murderer might have left at the scene besides (or in) his horrible signature. Even the murder itself was a secondary consideration for the killer. The post death mutilations were his main priority, or was he actually searching for, or retrieving something after the killing and mutilating ?
Jeff D |
Author: Edana
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 05:06 am | | An interesting idea Jeff, I think we discussed the gift-giving Jack once before. What a perfect way to endear yourself to these poor down and out women. Money is business, but a gift would be a personal and disarming statement, perhaps putting these women at their ease a bit. Yet, I can't stop thinking that they would have boasted more about it to everyone..that they were important enough to somebody for that person to give them a gift.
Edana |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 05:29 am | | Hi, Jeff and Edana:
Indeed, I think a friendly, gift-giving Jack is very plausible. Such a scenario could well have been the way it happened, i.e., that the killer wormed his way into the confidence of each of his victims by giving them a gift. Moreover, if this is what happened, the probability that he may afterwards have robbed the victims makes his actions seem all the more horrendous.
Chris George |
Author: Sara
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 07:02 am | | Hello, all - It is my opinion that any gift other than a posey would have been looked upon as a "tip" and would probably have been pawned as soon as the sun came up. This, of course doesn't make matters any less horrendous, but perhaps a bit less sentimental. Can you imagine a brawl over a sliver of soap, or pawning your own boots for a night's rest?
Desperate times for desperate people.
All the best,
Sara |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 07:19 am | | An interesting parallel with the Jeffrey Dahmer case occurred to me when Jeff mentioned the mutilations as being Jack's priority.
Dahmer actually became aroused by groping around the warm insides of his victims. And although he admitted to needing complete control over them, there seemed no hatred in his deeds. His aim was not cruelty or the inflicting of pain. It was more like he wanted his victims all to himself forever. When he cooked and ate some body parts he felt most 'at one' with the person he had killed. So could Jack have given gifts as part of an ownership ritual? Making his mark for the future? Perhaps he sorted out their possessions when he killed them to see if they had kept some little trinket of his rather than taking it straight round to the pawnbrokers.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 07:30 am | | Jeff -
The Eddowes references you are thinking of are from Sgt. Jones of the City police, who found 3 boot buttons, a thimble and a mustard tin beside poor Kate's body, and from the autopsy report of Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, who noted:
"A piece [of intestine] of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design."
Likewise, Mary Kelly was noted thus in George Hutchinson's statement:
"She said that she had lost her handkerchief. He then pulled his handkerchief a red one and gave it to her."
As Edana said, we have discussed the gift-giving Ripper before. We once also discussed the significance of the colour red among the victims, but this line of enquiry did not seem to be worthwhile (it was, I believe, on the Stride board if you wish to search for it).
CMD |
Author: Jeff D
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 07:31 am | | Hi Sara ! (& Everyone)
... exactly.... and a very good point. This is probably why the killer couldn't find it (ha ha!) !? Whether the victim was in posession of the gift even 5-minutes after it was presented to them is not significant.
Actually, thinking about it, what better way for someone who has a major inferiority complex (which I believe the Ripper did), to get familiar with someone, than to make some token offering to them. Dependant on the victims needs at that time, something may have been offered or promised. The gift, or lack therof is not the main point. I'm just considering that the victims would have met the Ripper at some time, yet felt comfortable in his immediate presence. (not his presents, ha ha!)
Cheers All, I do recall some thread a while back on whether the Ripper may have given any gifts, but I couldn't remember the outcome or general consensus from the discussion. I would be interested to to see if people thought there was any kind of pre-selection ritual the Ripper may have practised, or whether the murders were just random acts of violence based on the Ripper knowing his hunting ground and his type of prey?
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Bob_C
Friday, 19 November 1999 - 04:41 am | | Hi all,
I have always been a bit unsure as to if Jack could have presented gifts to the Ladies or not, Nichol's bonnet, Stride's posey etc. If the others had become some little present or not is not known.
Polly's famous '..look what a jolly bonnet I've got now..' could indicate such, but she did not say if it was a present, or how she came by it. She didn't even say it was new, so we can suppose it wasn't. Now, she may not have wanted to have said that she'd got it from a client, and no-one would probably have believed her when she had said it were from a boyfriend, so she said nothing about the source. She seemed to be pleased with it though, to have remarked on it.
I can still believe that Jack could have crept around the Ladies in that way, giving flattering presents. It could also be that he gave money without 'service', thus getting his victim warm to him and collecting the loot later at the scene. None of the can. five are said to have had money on or by them, so it could be that Jack took the brass as payment for the trim.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Jeff D
Saturday, 20 November 1999 - 01:19 am | | Hello Everyone !
In considering the murder scenes, and looking for any indication of the type of man who could do such a thing, I am constantly amazed at the swiftness and absolute silence of the act.
People were never too far away. Sometimes open windows had people just the other side, sleeping, or just dozing, whatever, yet noone heard a thing. The closest anyone ever came to hearing the attack was Cadoche. The muffled cry of 'no' along with a slight bump against the fence was all he heard and even this must have been so insignificant, as to have not even troubled Cadoche to give it a second thought. This was a matter of only a few feet away, with just a simple fence between him, the killer, and the absolutely horrendous scene that was to be discovered.
I believe the Ripper was a very troubled man. According to SK-Profiling, he would have had a major inferiority complex. I rate this point highly, when considering my short-list of suspects. The killer would have felt very uncomfortable, and in some way inferior in the presence of these women. According to the few, sparse eye witness reports we have, he appears to have been able to strike up some sort of friendly conversation with the victim, enough (at least) to get them to lead him to a secluded spot.
Considering the possibility of an inferiority complex, I would have thought it quite difficult for someone with this kind of make up, to approach a total stranger. I suppose when in killing mode, the Rippers' alter ego would take over, and this could account for him propositioning the girls with total confidence, but why these women, and these times 'n' places ? Constantly throughout this scenario, I get the impression that the victims knew their killer. This is my feeling only, and is something that 111 years of investigation still hasn't been able to prove, but to me, it's a very strong theme that seems to run right through the whole autumn of Terror.
Here we have a silent killer, someone who is very much a loner, dwelling within his own world. Yet there are times when he can approach a woman, exchange a brief few words which put the woman at ease and offering her services, then swiftly and quietly, she is subdued and vicously violated, without any alarm being raised.
I first of all think the killer would have found it quite difficult to approach a total stranger. I'm not saying that they were great friends or commrades, just that they may have been reasonably familiar. Maybe (probably) they drank in the same establishments. They were more than likely just on 'Hello'-like terms, or just a friendly nod, or tip of the cap while passing in the street. Any way that you look at it, I believe that the victims had met or spoken to their killer at some time in the past, and this is where I tend to focus when considering my suspects.
The killer too, would have been reasonably fit and/or strong. The women he prayed upon, though not the fittest themselves didn't even have any chance to cry out or struggle. They were overpowered very quickly, and considering that victims such as Chapman for example, (Tabram maybe also), were quite chubby really, and had no neck to speak of, the killer had to have been able to get a very firm grasp around the quite-thick throat, so swiftly and with such determination as to not make any mistake or give the victim any chance to scream.
I know there isn't evidence in all cases, but I believe the Ripper stood face-to-face with his victim just prior to the attack. Strangulation hasn't always been confirmed, but I think this had to be his prime MO. The silence of all murders (bar kelly) shows that they had to be "out-of-it" so to speak, before he started slashing with the knife. I have therefore built up a profile, that includes amongst other things, a man who was very much the lone type, who was quite strong, maybe had quite large or powerful hands, and who's face would have been familiar to the victims.
Comments very welcome....
Thanks All !
Jeff D |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Saturday, 20 November 1999 - 05:50 am | | Hi, Jeff:
I am concerned that you let the profiling "need" of an inferiority complex override your search for Jack. The fact that, as you say, the murderer was able to operate with amazing quietness and swiftness shows that he had a marked assuredness if not bravado that enabled him to operate so successfully. It would not surprise me if he thought he was invincible. As we know, serial killers tend to think they will not be caught. I think these are possibly the overriding features rather than a feeling of inferiority. I think if you over-emphasize a supposed inferiority complex you might come up with the wrong individual.
With the possible exception of the question of whether Jack knew his victims, I agree with your closing remarks:
"The silence of all murders (bar Kelly) shows that they had to be 'out-of-it' so to speak, before he started slashing with the knife. I have therefore built up a profile, that includes amongst other things, a man who was very much the lone type, who was quite strong, maybe had quite large or powerful hands, and whose face would have been familiar to the victims."
Good start, Jeff.
Chris George |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 20 November 1999 - 02:39 pm | | G'day Jeff and Chris,
I agree that 'Jack' must have been a familiar face to his victims and possibly even frequented the same places, may have sat alone, occasionally spoke to them, often gave them gifts and was thought of as a 'safe' customer, ie. someone they thought they could trust in the 'Autumn of Terror'.
I think there's a strong possibility that he had approached them as a well-behaved customer before their last nights and was probably known as a 'Good natured guy'.
I believe he may have had what was considered then, a 'diability', that he he could 'bring on stage' when he needed to and make himself seem weak and harmless.
LEANNE! |
Author: Jeff D
Wednesday, 24 November 1999 - 03:05 am | | Hello All ! (& thanks Chris G for the response)
You are definitely one of the posters that I hold in high regard, and I do pay attention to the things you have to say. Regarding my "Inferiority Complex" claim, this is one of the items listed in FBI psychological profile that I do consider, though you rightly have reminded me that without any real evidence, it is dangerous to make any kind of assumption. See my posts throughout Casebook message boards and you will see why I'm not a published author, even though I do have a short list of favourite suspects.
While in killing (Ripper) mode, the murderer obviously did have a certain amount of crazed courage. He was obviously out of his mind and nothing would stop him satisfying his blood lust. I see the Ripper though, as someone who could very well have had some sort of disability (mental or physical), which made him feel inferior to his peers. He was sending out a message of some kind to WHitechapel and the world. If killing itself was of primary importance to the Ripper, he would have taken steps to perform the act in private, maybe then disposing or hiding the body in order to ensure his future liberty. The Ripper did his deeds out in the open, where it could gain the most publicity, while taking the ultimate risk himself, of being caught in the act.
The Ripper did this for a reason that will now only ever be known to himself and his maker. I do just find discussion of his possible reasoning, and trying to profile the killer interesting subject matter for these message boards. We know that many neighbours have been surprised to find the nice-quiet man next door, who wouldn't hurt a fly, and is always polite and well mannered, when the beast is finally captured. I'll bet that if the murders were solved back in 1889, the Ripper's neighbours would have said "Him ? naw neva', he was the nicest, quietest man!"
Thanks Chris, Leanne and everybody !
Jeff D |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Wednesday, 24 November 1999 - 08:50 am | | Hi, Jeff:
Nice to hear from you again. I definitely think that you are correct, Jeff, that there is significance in the fact that the killer left his victims out in the open on public streets, displayed where they could not fail to be found. In my view, there is no doubt that this open display has some relationship with the killer's psychological makeup. On the other hand, this very public display also leaves an opening for those who think the murders were part of some conspiracy, be it Royal, masonic, or whatever, or that the killings had an occult motive. I very much doubt that any of these scenarios occurred, but the stunning and audacious display of the victims enables those who want to believe such theories to continue to promulgate those ideas. To my mind, Jack was a sexual serial killer and the murders began and ended with the gratification he received from his crimes.
Jeff, keep up the dialogue!
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 24 November 1999 - 10:25 am | | Hi All,
I guess this might not be the right board for the following observation but as we have been talking about what made Jack do things the way he did, here goes nothing.
A little snippet from last night's documentary about the notorious serial killer John Wayne Gacy caught my attention (although I did doze off towards the end :-0 ).
Gacy stabbed his first victim to death but was appalled by the bloody mess this left him in when he 'came to' so to speak. Thereafter he chose strangulation to dispatch 32 more victims.
JtR had even more reason to avoid being bloodstained, since he seemed determined to show off his 'work' as soon as possible after he did it, as Jeff and Chris have reminded us. Could he have made the same initial mistake with Martha Tabram?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 24 November 1999 - 11:40 pm | | Hello Caz, All
Could possibly have been a learning point for JtR. But not only the MO changes from stabbing to strangulation plus slice mutilation. The focus of location changes too: from trunk to abdomen.
Actually, JtR would be as bloodstained as with Martha because of his mucking around in the intestines of his victims.
Cheers,
Jill |
|
|
|
|
