|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Peter Sutcliffe - The Yorkshire Ripper
Casebook Message Boards: Beyond Whitechapel - Other Crimes: Peter Sutcliffe - The Yorkshire Ripper
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 06:31 am |        | Just thought I'd open this one up, given how often he crops up in conversation, along with a link to Keith Brannen's Yorkshire Ripper Web Site.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: graziano
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 07:15 am | | Well, you may see from that Site that I was right concerning Helen Rytka, and you were wrong.
Cheers, Graziano. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 08:57 am | | Graz -
I'm afraid I can't recall precisely what the point under debate was, and it looks as if our conversation may have disappeared into the black hole of the Christmas-time server crash. Remind me again what we were saying?
Cheers
Guy |
Author: graziano
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 11:32 am | | The point in fact was a more complex one than only the case of Helen Rytka.
I was contending the fact that had Jack been a solitary killer (very intelligent or lunatic) he could not have killed in the sites it is supposed he did, because whatever the character of the killer he knows that he had better :
a) not to be seen,
b) not to be interrupted,
but overall, condition sinequa non of his beginning the assault, if seen and interrupted,
c) not to be caught and thus being able to escape.
This third condition respond to the need of survival of the murderer and even if he is a yelling mad, he will follow it instinctively.
Now, it is hard to see how, alone, he could have assaulted and then killed
a) Martha Tabram on a landing (had someone come up the stairs or come out one of the apartements he would have been seen, interrupted but overall trapped);
b) Mary Ann Nichols on a street-corridor (imagine Cross coming up Buck's row and PC Neil coming down it) without being able to see round the Board school only some yards away;
c) Annie Chapman on a closed yard (imagine someone going to the toilet when he was just there);
d) Elizabeth Stride on a passage with only one way out (what if he was still there when Diemshutz/Dienshitz was entering it);
Catherine Eddowes is a more complex case. I leave it now.
Mary Kelly is too much different for considering here.
In every of the murders above he seemed not to care about being seen, being interrupted but most of all being caught.
If you add accomplices who were keeping watch much of what is not logical may become so and in fact (it is not here the place to explain) the sites become the perfect ones (excepted the one of Polly Nichols, but this is another story as you well know).
So, to show that a solitary killer would not chose such sites to assault and kill I said that Peter Sutcliffe did it each time in a place where he would not run such risks simply because a solitary killer could not kill there.
Each time Sutcliffe killed in an open place from where he could see somebody approaching and from where he had a way to escape if interrupted.
You answered that this was not the case and gave four examples: Jane McDonald, Helen Rytka, Barbara Leach and Jaqueline Hill.
Well, in the four examples you were wrong.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 05:21 am | | Graziano -
Thanks for recalling the debate. Reading your argument above, I can only conclude that there must previously have been some misunderstanding. Let's see if I have got this straight this time - you are arguing that Sutcliffe, because he was acting alone, did not kill in confined spaces. Instead, he chose locations where he had a clear view (presumably for some distance), and an easy escape route, right?
If I have got this right, then indeed you are broadly correct in saying that the locations of the four murders you list above fit the bill. There are, however, certain qualifications. Most of all, in all these cases, the initial attack took place 'in the open': MacDonald in Reginald Terrace itself, Rytka close enough to the entrance to Garrard's yard to be visible from Great Northern Street, Leach actually in Ash Grove, and Hill on Alma Road. However, in all these cases, Sutcliffe swiftly moved to a more 'restricted' area in order to finish the job: MacDonald in the playground, Rytka further into the yard behind stacks of timber, Leach in the backyard of no. 13 Ash Grove, Hill on the patch of waste ground behind the Arndale Centre.
Indeed, this pattern can be seen in other cases too - particularly that of Marguerite Walls. Why? Well, I would suggest that the 'open' location for an attack is, in terms of security for the killer, something of a double-edged sword. As you quite rightly say, it has the advantage that, at the moment of the initial attack, the killer can more easily check that nobody is witnessing his actions, and stands a better chance of escape if necessary. On the other hand, it is not a viable place to carry on the rest of the killing and mutilation; the longer he stays out in the open (any time longer than a few seconds, realistically), the greater the chance that someone will happen along, and be able clearly to see what is going on. Hence the need to move to somewhere relatively secluded and (often) more enclosed. Exactly how secluded that place is will inevitably vary from case to case (as I seem to recall saying, even the playground between Reginald Terrace and Reginald Street would be overlooked by nearby houses, though there would be an advantage of relative darkness), but it always offers a necessary counterbalance to the great risk being run in the earlier stages of the attack (although the killer can see, he can also be seen).
Now, you seem to be suggesting above that the lone killer prefers an open location, whereas one with an accomplice to act as lookout will tend towards the more enclosed venue. I think I understand your reasoning, but I also think you have possibly overlooked certain factors which serve only to complicate the picture, making the distinction much less clear-cut. Remember also that in the Yorkshire Ripper series, we do have a 'Kelly-like' killing: that of Tina Atkinson, murdered in her own apartment. If we attempt a strict demarcation between the preferences of lone and accompanied killers such as you appear to be putting forward, then this murder is inexplicable. If we instead accept the more complex scenario, then it makes more sense.
To go back to the Rytka killing for a moment - I have some questions which I propose to throw out to anybody able to help, for which I shall start a new sub-topic.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 05:57 am | | Exactly so, Guy Hatton, that's why I have always believed that in the "Jack" case the women were killed and cut where the body were found but they were brought there after having been assaulted somewhere else.
Clearly, "Jack" assaulted them where it was easier to do (where there was less possibility of hearing noises but also where the women would go without suspicion or simply where they were standing at the moment) and then brought them in a predetermined site to begin the butchery.
And exactly in the way Sutcliffe followed: having rendered them unconscious before.
The only difference between Sutcliffe and "Jack" being that Sutcliffe aim for the location of the butchey was that he needed a site where he could see coming and could in case of necessity quickly go.
"Jack" had the need of a site which aim was to terrorize the population and scorn the police.
For that he needed others to watch coming.
Of course the corollary of all this reasoning is the answer to the question: where would those women go (without suspicion, at least at first) and where could a prostitute perform, realistically ?
The case of Tina Atkinson present a huge difference with the Mary Kelly's one.
But let's go step by step.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 07:37 am | | Graz -
I'm interested in your idea that the Whitechapel Murderer's victims were moved from one place to another. Of course, we have heard a version of this before, from Knight and Fairclough, who argue that they were killed in a coach and their bodies dumped where they were found, but you appear to be saying something different, in that you seem to accept that the killing actually occurred where the bodies were found. Are you saying you think they were moved a great distance, or (as with Sutcliffe's victims) merely a few yards? And am I right in thinking that, contra Sutcliffe, you think the Whitechapel victims were moved from the 'enclosed' area to the 'open' space? It's an interesting idea, but once again, I don't think the distinction is all that clear-cut. Neither killer went to any great lengths to hide their victims bodies (Sutcliffe tried harder than 'Jack', but with the exception of Pearson, none of his victims went undiscovered for long - so perhaps there was a desire to terrorise the finder here too. For instance, this is the stated opinion of Dr. Gee's assistant, Michael Green, interviewed for the television documentary Manhunt: The Search For The Yorkshire Ripper:
These were not frenzied attacks. This was the sort of man who thought about what he had done, planned his attack carefully, and then was concerned to arrange everything about the body to have the maximum shock impact upon whoever came upon the scene first, and those who came afterwards.
As for the question 'where would these women go...and where could a prostitute perform?' - the simple answer would be 'anywhere they thought nobody would see them for about five minutes or so'. In that respect, the places where Nichols and Eddowes were found seem unlikely to be the precise spots where they would have 'done the business', unless they had reason to believe that those places would be all but deserted at that time of night, whereas Stride and Kelly were found in more plausible places (though if Dutfield's Yard was somewhere Stride regularly used, I would think she normally took punters further up the yard away from the gate). Chapman I'm not sure about - she may have been 'chancing it' a bit at that time of morning, in a place which nevertheless was commonly used safely at other times of night.
I would say that all of Sutcliffe's prostitute victims were attacked in exactly the kind of place one might expect them to use for business, and indeed, Sutcliffe in his confession repeatedly emphasises that the women indicated to him where to go, rather than leave the choice up to him. I think too that a prostitute would refuse to go with any man she suspected might attack her ('ugly mugs', I think they call them nowadays).
Cheers
Guy |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 01:45 am | | Hello Guy,
yes, that's what I say.
Killed and butchered where they were found but previously assaulted and rendered unconscious somewhere else.
No, absolutely not a great distance from the assault's site to the murder's one.
For Kelly it was the same place (her room).
Yes, the assault's site was an "enclosed" one (with the likely exception for Tabram) and the murder's one was an "open" one (except for Kelly).
Yes, you are right about the answer to where would a prostitute go but I think your answer is incomplete because first to think at not being seen the prostitute has to think at being in a place where she could quickly be safe if anything wrong would happen with her client.
I absolutely agree for the places not being the right to perform for Nichols and Eddowes to which I would add Stride (too many people passing by the passage and this being too narrow).
For Tabram and Chapman the places seems to me to be even less suitable but this time overall from the point of view of the client.
He pays.
He must enjoy for what he pays but he also has the problem of not being seen and also a problem of safety with which to cope.
I have to go away for some days.
I'll expand further as soon as I come back.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 06:42 am | | Graz -
Thanks - I'm glad we've got that clear. Speak to you when you get back.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 12:04 pm | | Hi, Guy:
Glad to see there is now a decent Yorkshire Ripper website compared to Noel O'Gara's site proclaiming that Sutcliffe was not the Yorkshire Ripper!
All the best
Chris |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 05:10 pm | | | What in your estimation is the best one book on this subject. Is the Yorkshire Ripper a real comparason with JTR? |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 21 February 2002 - 04:48 am | | David -
I'd recommend three books on the Yorkshire Ripper:
The Yorkshire Ripper by Roger Cross. The only one of the three still in print as far as I know, though they can all be fairly easily found secondhand (check out the Advanced Book Exchange, for instance). Cross was the Yorkshire Post's crime correspondent at the time, and gives a solid, well-informed factual account.
Somebody's Husband, Somebody's Son by Gordon Burn. A well-rounded biography of Sutcliffe, drawing on interviews with his family and friends. Possibly the most 'entertaining' read of the three.
Deliver Us From Evil by David Yallop. Written partly before and partly after Sutcliffe's arrest. Yallop at his best can be very perceptive - he suggested long before anyone else that a number of other crimes (some of which Sutcliffe has subsequently confessed to) should be studied closely for signs of Sutcliffe's involvement. It should be noted, though, that there are some (pre-arrest) passages which are sheer speculative fiction.
In addition to these, Patrick Lavelle's Wearside Jack is worth a read, covering as it does his attempts to discover the identity of the letter/tape hoaxer.
Ones to avoid (or at least leave 'til last!):
The Real Yorkshire Ripper by Noel O'Gara. O'Gara has spent upwards of twenty years trying to convince all and sundry that the Ripper was a former employee of his by the name of Billy Tracey, that Sutcliffe was a mere copycat, and that a deal was done with Sutcliffe to close the case and cover up the identity of the real Ripper, who is still at large. O'Gara is not above any form of distortion, invention or self-contradiction in the pursuit of his case.
The Streetcleaner: The Yorkshire Ripper Case On Trial by Nicole Ward Jouve. Sheer inane psychobabble.
Chris -
I think the impetus for Keith to put his site online was that up until then, O'Gara's site had the highest profile on the Net, and that there was an urgent need to counter its disinformation.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Paul Boothby
Thursday, 21 February 2002 - 05:49 am | | David,
I'd go along with Guy's three recommendations wholeheartedly, especially on the Burn book (He has also written a similar style 'Happy Like Murderers' about Fred & Rose West)
Paul |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 10:53 pm | | G'day Guy, Chris, David, Paul, everyone.
Great website Guy, next time I've got a spare week I'll go through it all. As it is I've only got a couple of books to work from in regard to Suttcliffe.
As for Jacks' victims being moved to where they were found I don't think so. Remember after Polly was taken away to the morgue, Inspector Reid (I think) was disappointed to find that when he visited the murder scene there was somebody already hosing away the blood from the pavement.
And with Annie, there was blood sprayed on the fence indicating she was murdered where she was found.
Stride: there is no doubt she was murdered where she was.
Cathereine was seen talking to another bloke by Lawande, Levy and Harris about 15 minutes before her body was found in the same spot.
Mary's murder is self explanatory.
Another point is that Jack would have ben risking himself even more if he was aeen dragging a body down the street.
Look forward to seeing you guys later.
Jules |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 04:30 am | | Jules -
Nice to see you again.
I tend to agree that Jack's victims were almost certainly not moved from one place to another during the course of the attacks, but I was intrigued to understand what Graziano was suggesting. As I understand it, his scenario is such that blood would not flow until the victims had already been subdued and removed to their final place of discovery.
Hope you find Keith's site useful. I should also mention that the Crime Library also carries a decent basic account of the case for those interested.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 10:37 pm | | Hey Guy, good to see you too.
Hmmm, If I get your meaning correctly you're suggesting the victims were already dead when he moved them?
If that's the case then there wouldn't have been the bllod spurts that were found at the murder sited as the heart would have stopped pumping.
Have I got your meaning right?
Take care
Jules |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 04:01 am | | Not quite, Jules. What Graziano appears to be arguing is that the victims were subdued in some way first, then dragged a short distance to the place where they were killed an mutilated. I guess you'll have to ask him to explain this in more detail himself when he gets back!
All the Best
Guy |
Author: graziano
Friday, 12 April 2002 - 03:55 am | | Guy,
as I told you in one of my posts above, there is a huge difference between the Tina Atkinson case and the Mary Kelly's one.
No one could have seen Peter Sutcliffe while smashing her head and butchering Mrs Atkinson.
No one in this case could have at anytime "pulled the curtain aside and looked in".
Now of course, except if you believe the very original and folkloristic theory of the "lunatic/yelling mad who does not care about being seen/discovered in the act because his compulsions are too strong and in fact he is at that moment not in our world but in his own virtual reality", this have very serious implications for the whole case.
Since I do not believe you are a psychologist/psychiatric who has to justify his salary in some way, I think we will have the opportunity to discuss it further.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 12 April 2002 - 05:37 am | | Graz -
A difference, yes, but one which I think you are exaggerating. I don't know about you, but I don't go around casually peering in through broken windows. I would think that the same could be said for most people both today and in 1888, unless, as with Bowyer in the Kelly case, there is a specific reason for it. Just because somebody could have peered in, it doesn't follow that they necessarily would have done so, and the indoor location might still be perceived as in some way more secure. Where this 'security' is most compromised is at the point of exit. In this connection, the Whitechapel killer may have had the advantage. Having left Mary's room, he was clear of the building and very nearly out on the open street. Sutcliffe wasn't: he was still inside a residential block where other people might have encountered him, and with a certain distance between himself and his car. I shall try to make time to check the details of this next time I'm in Bradford.
I don't think either man conforms to the 'folkloristic theory'. Sutcliffe certainly took steps to avoid detection, and the Whitechapel Murderer seems to have done so too, unless it was sheer luck that nobody was about at the time of the attacks (with the possible exception of Cadosch - though Chapman's killer may have been unaware of his presence, and he apparently did not have a clear line of sight to the murder scene). In this connection, I must declare my personal scepticism regarding Stride's status as a Ripper victim. Her attacker seems to me to have been considerably more reckless than the man responsible for the other murders.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: graziano
Friday, 12 April 2002 - 05:42 am | | Remember Guy that in Miller's Court the killer, we are to believe, was ripping with his back to the windows (and eyes to the wall), giving the time and possibility to a would-have-been-earlier-Bowyer to look, go to the police, come back with them and still catch him, who, having his face towards the wall did not notice the witness, right on the deed.
Some even suggest that while ripping he lighted a big fire to be able to see better.
Thus rendering even easier for the same would-have-been-earlier-Bowyer to look at him doing his job.
Everybody could have peeped through the window, Barnett, Hutchinson, Flemming, a colleague/lady of the streets coming there for the night, a client, all could have had a specific reason (speak, sex, sleep).
Miller's Court was more a working place than a living one.
As you say, Sutcliffe acted not only to feed his compulsions but also to avoid detection.
Why should I believe this was not the case for "Jack" ?
In 13 Miller's Court there is no doubt the victim's throat was cut while on the bed.
Far less evident than the butchery took place at the same place.
I am no expert in Forensics but the cuts on the inner part of the left thigh (2nd picture - look at the femur) can in no way have been done by someone standing on the left of the body when this same left thigh was at right angles to the trunk.
And overall on a soft surface.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Saturday, 13 April 2002 - 06:50 am | | Graz -
You asked:
As you say, Sutcliffe acted not only to feed his compulsions but also to avoid detection.
Why should I believe this was not the case for "Jack" ?
I'm not suggesting you should. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: James Jeffrey Paul
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 11:24 pm | | | Peter Sutcliffe's father apparently now believes, as does a crime researcher, that his son was only responsible for the non-fatal assaults in the Yorkshire Ripper series. Sounds like a lot of hooey. Does anyone else know about this, or have any ideas concerning it? |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 09:17 am | | Hi, James:
The best argument that the police got the right guy is that the killings stopped. The same could be said, for example, of the Moors Murderers or the recent Sniper shootings in the Washington, D.C. area. Suspects were apprehended and the killings stopped. What could be clearer?
There are always going to be second-guessers who deny the evidence of logic. We don't know what happened to the original Jack the Ripper of 1888 but the traditional view that he died or was incarcerated for some other offense or for mental illness, or possibly fled the country, is probably so because in the East End the killings that were unique to the killer stopped.
Thus, one of these explanations is probably the true reason for end of the Ripper's style of killings and mutilation despite efforts of Patricia Cornwell and R. Michael Gordon and others to find other non-Ripper-like murders to pin on their suspects because of the inconvenient fact that their chosen "Rippers" kept on living and functioning in London after 1888.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 06:52 am | | It is hooey, as Chris points out very well above. John Sutcliffe has been 'got at' in the past by Noel O'Gara (see warnings above). Perhaps it is this you are thinking of? And who is the unnamed 'researcher'? O'Gara? I can't think of anyone else who believes that Sutcliffe was not the 'real' Yorkshire Ripper.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: James Jeffrey Paul
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 05:27 pm | | | Yes, it was he. Was a bit surprised that Peter Sutcliffe's father John bought this theory--I thought that he'd come to grips with his son's guilt. But you can't blame him for not wanting to believe that his son could commit such horrible crimes. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 04:15 am | | I'd agree with you there, James. it seems to me that O'Gara has been preying on Sutcliffe senior's vulnerability in this connection.
All the Best
Guy |
|
|
|
|
