|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 9:30 am: | 
|
Hi all
It has often been thought that Jack in his earlier life may have done some of the things other serial killers have been known to have done before they turn to murdering. Namely, torture and kill small animals or start fires.
On another thread, I noted that suspect John Pizer was exonerated after it was noted taht he was stated to have been watching the dock fire that occurred on the same night as the murder of Mary Nichols. At 1:30 am on the morning of August 31, Pizer talked to a policeman on the Seven Sisters Road about the glow in the distance. For more on the fire (there were actually two of them), see GREAT FIRE AT THE LONDON DOCKS, East London Advertiser, Saturday, 1 September 1888 in the Press Reports section.
I have always thought it curious that two big events occurred on that night, the dock fire and the Nichols murder. Is it possible that the two events could have been connected?
Is there any possibility that Jack could have set the fire and then set off north toward Whitechapel in search of a victim, thinking that the fire might help divert police attention from the streets and so make his work of finding a victim easier? Just a thought and I have no other reason to bear out the theory other than the coincidence of both events occurring on the same night and the possibility that Jack might have been a firestarter earlier in life. There is also the matter of the supposed big blaze in Mary Jane Kelly's grate... could it be that in addition to giving him light for the mutilation of his victim or of the need to burn his or her clothes, the fire might have made our Jacky feel more secure and content?
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 164
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 10:22 am: |
|
This theory is very plausable.
Let's agree, for purposes of argument, that Nichols was the first victim.
Jack has been setting small fires for years. He's on the young side, I think, of the ages guessed at by witnesses-early 20's. (This is because I think of firesetting as an adolescent behavior but I'm certainly no expert here).
Setting fires turns him on, and he always stays near the scene in order to keep the pleasure going for as long as possible.So far the only killing he has done is of small animals.
While he's leaving the scene of the fire he notices a very drunk woman and the whole thing comes together in his mind.He's in a state of extreme excitement because of the fire and is ready to make the leap to killing.
Of course this is pure fiction, but I think it certainly fits in with what we know about sadistic mutilators and is worth pursuing.
Mags
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 10:45 am: |
|
I wrote a letter to the London Fire Brigade several years ago to see if they had a record of who the firebugs were at that time. They didnt. If there is any history of how the dock fire got started that might be valuable too. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Yes, I do like the idea of Jack as a firestarter.
It sort of fits.
But I do feel that any London dock fires probably had their fuses in the London dock workers.
They weren't happy chaps at that time.
Socialism was the colour of fire.
Jack?
An individual.
But I still like it. |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 614
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 6:21 pm: |
|
Weren't there two separate fires that night, one at the Albert docks and another at the Ratcliff docks? I know the one at the Albert docks was a warehouse fire (brandy, A.P. :P), but I'm not sure about the Ratcliff fire. I don't think I've ever read about the causes, if arson was involved or not.
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on December 15, 2004) |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 578
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 11:37 pm: |
|
Hi,
I've gone through some of Robert's press findings on the number of fires per year (his postings are in the graverobbing thread).
He's found 3 reports (which I'll call R1, R2, and R3 to indicate the order in which they appear in that thread. R1 and R2 are in the same post).
Anyway, here goes.
In R1 it is reported that in 1887 there were "a little over 2,170" fires. It also reports that in the previous year (1886), there were "nearly 150 fewer" (so somewhere around 2,020 fires).
In R2 it is reported that in 1888 there were 1884 fires, which they say was down from the 2363 fires in 1887.
R1 and R2, therefore give us two values for 1887. Either 2,170 ish (from R1) or 2,363 (from R2).
As a suggestion, it could be that the R1 report is simply not based upon final counts, or that this is the number of fires "to date" (meaning, the rest of the fires indicated in R2 occurred after the reporting of R1). Regardless, at the time R1 was made, until some other data turns up, we should base our numbers for 1886 from the value listed in R1.
For now, let's go with the reporting of 1887 fires found in R2 as reflecting "final tallies for the completed previoius year", while R1 is some sort of sub-total.
In R3, the number of fires for 1889 is given, along with more specific information, such as the number of "calls: 3,131". Calls includes "false alarms", which were 594. There were also 199 chimney fires. From R3 it appears chimney fires were considered as different from "fires", so that means there were 2,338 "fires" (which R3 breaks down into serious and minor, most being minor: 2,185 minor, 153 serious).
As the previous reports do not include information about chimney fires, it is unclear if those previous values include or exclude such things. Also, R1 and R2 do not give us the minor/serious break downs, or the false alarm calls.
R3 also tells us that the number of "fires" was up from 1888 by 350. Since they differentiate between "fires" and "chimney fires", that would give us 1,988 fires for 1888, which is 104 more fires than R2 lists for that year (R2 gives 1,884 fires for 1888). Again, this could indicate that R2's report is a similar "sub-total" value for 1888, as could be the case for R1's reporting of fires for 1887.
R3 also gives a 10 year average indirectly (saying the number of fires it reports for 1889 is up by 267 from the 10 year average. I've used the 2,338 value for the number of fires (which excludes chimney fires), which means the 10 year average appears to be around 2071
That would give us the following data:
year : number of fires
1886 : 2,020 (approx)
1887 : 2,363
1888 : 1,988
1889 : 2,338
10yr : 2,071
In this table, I've based the years estimates on the later of two reports on the assumption that the earlier report does not have the final tally for that year. This assumption may not be valid, and certainly more research would need to be done. And, as it does appear that what is called a "fire" doesn't include chimney fires, it would be important to know if R1 and R2 are including or excluding chimney fires.
Now, if JtR were a fire-starter as well as a killer, it's interesting that 1888 is the year with the fewest fires.
Taking the average of the 1887 and 1889 (years around 1888), we get 2,350.5 fires per year. 1,988/2,350.5 means 1888 had only 84% of the number of fires as compared to the surrounding years. 84% of the year is about 10 months.
Now, JtR's murders in 1888 (canonical only) start on the last day of Aug, run through Sept, nothing in October, and end early December.
It's interesting to note that the murders span about 2 months.
So, is Jack spending those times looking for victims rather than setting fires? 84% of the "expected" fires per year, corresponds to the percent of the year JtR might not be killing after all?
Wouldn't that be cool? And don't we have the numbers to suggest it?
Well, no, our numbers don't really support that. See, for our numbers to support that conclusion we have to credit Jack with setting all the fires! So, unless Jack is setting all of London's "non-chimney fires" the rough correspondance in percentages can only be considered a coincidence.
But, if Jack were a fire setter, the drop in the numbers could, in part, be due to his "change of habits". And, it could be that his reason for having the fire in Mary's room was more an attempt to burn the place down. Combining his two thrills maybe? Serial arsonists will set hundreds of minor fires a year (often things like setting garbage cans alight, etc, which might not get counted).
Anyway, I'm not sure we can make too much from this yet (or ever), but stranger things have lead to insights in the past.
- Jeff
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:09 am: |
|
My head hurts!!! but that was really interesting!
Jenni |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 579
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Well, that wasn't exactly one of my clearest posts! Sorry. The most important information is probably the little table of fires for each year. The rest of the post breaks down in to two sections, the first dealing with why I have tentatively suggested those particular numbers. Since we have conflicts between the reports for some years (like 1888), I've gone with the number from the later report on the assumption that the earlier report has the lower value because the data collection was not complete at the time of the report. This assumption would have to be verified, and the difference could easily be due to something else. The other option would have been to average the two values. Anyway, I chose to just go with the later reports value. This could turn out to be a mistake (such as, the later reports may include chimney fires, which would not be interesting to us since we could be fairly sure Jack isn't setting those, etc).
The second aspect is just showing how one could easily make an error in logic by noting that the decrease in fires (about 16%) roughly corresponds to the time JtR was "on the prowl" (roughly 2 months, 16% of 12 months is about 1.9 months). However, that "correspondance" is a coincedence unless we want to suggest that Jack is setting all the fires in London! Otherwise, we would expect the decrease to be more "modest" (reflecting only the decrease in Jack's fires, not all fires). I'm not sure if that is very clear this time either, but that was presented more as a cautionary note. So the take home message there is along the lines of "we shouldn't put any importance on the correspondance between those percentages". We might, however, be interested by the overall decrease in fires for 1888 though. If Jack was a fire-starter, and he's changed his habits from arson to murder, then it is possible for a substantial drop to be noted. We would then have to assume that in 1889, Jack went back to arson for his thrills (since the fire rate returns to a high level that year).
Problem is, that without a substantial amount of data, preferably with the breakdown of the information as given in Robert's R3, it may be very difficult to figure out if there is any pattern that is truly of interest to this case.
I'm certainly not sure there will be, but who knows without looking?
- Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Jeff,
sorry to you! rest assured my head hurting had more to do with the state of my brain in this pre seasonal period than the quality of your detailed and informative post.
in other words i wasnt having a go i hope you did not take offence.
I just meant well worked out!
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on December 16, 2004)
(Message edited by jdpegg on December 16, 2004) |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 581
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Hi,
No, I wasn't offended. I find it hard to follow myself (I wrote it too quickly, and the number of fires being similar to dates makes it confusing as well), so I figured others would find it a bit of a brain bleeder as well. Glad you liked it. Actually, I find it reads better with more holiday cheer! ha!
- Jeff
P.S. Just as I hit the post button, I realised I hadn't put the "n't" on was in the opening sentence! That certainly would have changed the tone in a most unintentional way. I must remember to proof-read more closely.
(Message edited by jeffhamm on December 16, 2004) |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 27
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 7:48 pm: |
|
It is a very interesting and certainly very plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a 'firestarter' and started the dock fire as a diversion. And if it was not him who started it, then perhaps he still used the dock fires to his advantage anyway.
There were some curious, perhaps diversionary events around some of the victims' murders - as another example, the murder of Mary Kelly took place on the morning of the Lord Mayor's Show.
As I've posted in another thread previously, I don't consider Jack the Ripper to have been an experienced killer when he killed Polly Nichols, and it's my belief that the attack on her WAS a surprise one, her being drunk aiding that. And if there was a fire, then that supports that theory, because obviously the Ripper would like a diversion to keep potential witnesses away.
In any case, the killing of Polly Nichols is interesting in that the potential first killing had so many weird events surrounding it. The dock fires, in the open where she was killed, the first mutilations, etc.
Though, in my opinion, Martha Tabram was most likely the first victim of Jack the Ripper, but that's another discussion completely.
Regards,
Adam. |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 4:51 am: |
|
Hi all,
I just came across a rather interesting piece of information regarding the possibility of Jack starting fires in his earlier years.
Earlier, I was reading more of Stan Russo's book "The Jack the Ripper Suspects: Persons cited by Investigators and Theorists" , and I came across this:
Regarding the suspect Francis Thompson, on page 162, it says:
"Thompson's early school life is rich with stories of his affinity for fire. He burned his clothes, was reprimanded for an attempted arson attack on the church, and swung a device holding burning frankincense above his head.
This passion for fire remained into adulthood, as Thompson burned his London lodgings in 1896."
Now, whilst I personally don't consider Thompson to be a strong suspect in the case, is this the kind of behaviour that we are looking for in a Ripper suspect, and on this topic? Could that perhaps strengthen the case against Thompson?
Regards,
Adam. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:52 pm: |
|
I just don't find this at all convincing, sorry.
It's a kind of conspiracy theory, in that all events must be ascribed to one person.
Had it been pouring with rain on the night, would you have argued that JtR must have been a rain-dancer??
It is clear from the stats given that fires in the 1880s were VERY common.
Nice fantasy, "Jack the Arsonist" but not one that washes with me for a minute.
Phil |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Hi Phil
Admittedly this is just speculation, but I thought I would bring it up as a possible scenario. You don't find it convincing. I never said that it was convincing but just opened up this thread for discussion of a possibility that perhaps has not before been discussed.
As we have noted, if Jack was a firestarter in youth, that might be one way this scenario might seem plausible. Evidently, you don't like the idea of "a kind of conspiracy theory" but another way the fire could conceivably have had a connection to the Nichols murder is if, as some have speculated recently, the murders might have been part of a Fenian conspiracy... in which case, the firesetter and the murderer(s) could have been separate individuals. The docks fire could have been another way the Irish nationalists could have created mayhem in London, as with their bombing campaign.
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by ChrisG on December 17, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 36
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 1:16 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
What Chris said pretty much covers it all, but just a couple more points:
"Had it been pouring with rain on the night, would you have argued that JtR must have been a rain-dancer??"
We aren't 'arguing' anything, we're just simply suggesting that Jack most likely took part in other destructive behaviours before he turned to murdering and mutilating women, and that fire-starting is a likely candidate for that, along with my own thoughts of things like assault, robbery, pickpocketing, threatening people, etc. It's simply a suggestion, no more.
"Nice fantasy, "Jack the Arsonist" but not one that washes with me for a minute."
Then that's your opinion, but it's clear that the Ripper almost certainly was involved in crimes before, and didn't just jump out of the bushes and start ripping women up.
Regards,
Adam. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 6:31 am: |
|
The best candidates for pre-JtR crimes by "Jack" are some of the attacks known about and written about at the time.
He may have been a stamp collector or a vivisectionist, but its unlikely that we'll ever know. Interestingly all your examples seem to be things that working class suspects would be more likely to do than 9say) a druitt or a maybrick. So are you simply situating your (pre-conceived)appraisal - always a dangerous thing to do.
For those who somehow think I am "down on" (to use a "Jack"-related phrase) speculation: nothing could be further from my mind or intent. By I do think that WHEN we speculate, we should at least emply some self-imposed STANDARDS - such as evaluating and citing evidence (either period or later) and making some attempt to suggest how strong a likelihood the speculation is likely to be.
If one does not have some sort of standards, however simple - then anyone can suggest anything, and we will be expected to treat themn all as equal in worth because someone has postulated some weird theory. That is plainly nonsense.
Any idiot can speculate. It is up to the individual putting forward his ideas to show that he is MORE than that (as most I have seen on Casebook are).
Do we want a site like this to be taken seriously and Ripper-studies judged as something worthwhile rather than the pursuit of deviants? well, the solution lies in part in our own hands - subjecting our theorising/speculation to some sort of discipline.
I don't intend to lecture here, simply to put forward my own credo, and explain where i can coming from.
Take it as you will.
Phil |
Nicholas Smith
Police Constable
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 1
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 9:21 am: |
|
Ok Phil, you wish to have some credibility put behid the words other people have posted here before.
How's this for starters, it is a fact that many serial killers begin their lives as sadists - mainly toward animals and that they also facinated by arson.
Peter Kurten is a prime example. If you have a look through his resume you will find that he was indeed an asronist before he progressed to murder.
Therefore it is not implausible that Jack was responsible for the fires at Shagwell dock.
Sincerely
Diddles |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 655
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Sorry, I still don't find that "credible" evidence - if you do, that's fine. you don't have to justify yourself to me.
But why not say equally: "Jack could have been a thief and was responsible for all the robberies in the three/sex/none weeks before he started killing"?
I see no benefit, personally, in assigning all crimes to Jack without evidence and for no (to me) purpose.
At a rate of one response every six months, I'm not sure I can stand much more of the cut and thrust of this debate. It's simply too demanding!! You really must try to cut back on your posting in this thread Diddles.
Phil |
Nicholas Smith
Police Constable
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 9
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 10:09 am: |
|
G'day Phil. I'm not trying to justify myself to anyone, least of all you. Once again you've totally missed my point. I was merely backing up what other people had said in previous posts. And if you had read some of my previous posts you would have understood that I have been away from these boards for a number of years and am just resurecting previous threads.
I've also noticed that you can't help yourself retaliating (not responding) to my posts. If you have some personal vendetta against me I suggest that you email me privately so we can clean the air.
Sincerely
Diddles |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 250
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 1:33 am: |
|
Hi all, interesting thread. I see all points. The profilers say most SSKs were arsonists, bedweters, and treated animals sadistily. We got 2 problems here. Ill give the profilers about `15% accuracy. Thats generous. The actual figure on "hits" is about 8%. And that is assuming JTR is an SSK, which I dont believe he was. I see no evidence he was an SSK. I see this more as a hate thing. An individual some how wronged by WC hookers.I know its easy to try to put catigories and names on things, and 21st century profiling wants to do that. It doesnt apply here. IMHO JTR was an individual who was some how wronged by WC hookers and took his revenge.But then what do I know? Ive only been studing this case for 43 years. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 6:12 am: |
|
Hi Brad,
Taking murderous revenge on innocent members of a whole group of women, on the flimsy grounds that one or more of that group wronged him in some way, would make Jack a pretty typical serial killer, wouldn't it? I believe Peter Sutcliffe is one such example.
And if there is evidence of arson or cruelty to animals in the backgrounds of a significant number of identified serial killers, then I think it would be perfectly reasonable to speculate that Jack may have had a penchant for either activity.
Destruction of more than one kind might well have appealed to a man like Jack - no rational excuse required, which is just as well, considering there isn't one.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 17, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3603
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
I agree with that, Caz. Good post.
Too many serial killers we know of -- SSK:s or not -- have been involved in arson or/and cruelty to animals in younger years, too many in order for this fact to be ignored.
I do not think the fire in the London docks were Jack's work, but although I would reckon this trait to be a part of his earlier offences, arson or other crimes on his behalf can't be totally excluded, even if we have no evidence of such.
Common sense and our existing knowledge dictates that he must have done some petty crimes before he turned into a mutilator, and indecent behaviour, arson (as well cruelty to animals) seems to be something a large majority have indulged in -- the fact that such information and (that it is based on the killers we know of) derive from criminologists and profilers -- regardless of high their scores are -- does not make it less true. There truly is a pattern to be considered and not everything can be proven, only assumed with more or less probability. And in my book it is not impossible that he may have done other crimes of different character as well during the actual Ripper murders.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 251
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Hi Caz, perhaps my post wasnt as clear as I would have liked it to be. I agree completely with everything you wrote. The point I was making is that JTR doesnt fit the sexual serial killer ala Bundy or Dahmer. Actually our lad was quite a humane killer if such a thing exists. The vics were garroted inducing unconsienceness in 7 to 10 seconds and then the neck was sliced severing the vega nerve and stopping the heart beat instantly. (Hence the lack of blood spatter) I think his blitz like attack and lack of sexual sadism before death points to a need to obliverate his vic rather than play with them. I think this shows in his escalation of mutilation. It seems more of a hate crime rather than the typical MO of a Sexual Serial Killer. Also a point I was making is that Im not sure 21rst century profiling applies to those whos world is being rocked by the Industrial Revolution. An other time...an other place. Hope this clears up my position...Im still a Caz fan....Brad
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3606
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
Brad,
It is a common and tedious misconception that a SSK has to be a sexual sadist or leave signs of rape or semen at the crime scene.
I know several cases involving mutilation where the driving force has been sexual and where no signs of sexual activity is displayed but where the mutilations has the purpose of acting out inner fantasies.
A SSK do not have to be driven by sex as we know it; it is often all about compulsion and satisfaction from living out fantasies that comes very close to our sexual driving forces. That is why they are called SSK. The only dfference is, instead of raping, torturing and inflicting sadims on their victims BEFORE death, they act out their fantasies post mortem!
Sexual sadists are only ONE breed of SSK:s -- not the only one.
Besides, male hatred against women have usually its base in sexuality -- Even a killer like Sutcliffe (who in many aspects might be similar to JtR), who seems to have been driven by an uncontrolled rage, also suffered from sexual frustration. Usually those two (maybe added by domination) go together as far as male violent crimes against women are concerned.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Nicholas Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 12
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 6:21 pm: |
|
G'day Brad, Caz and Glenn,
I agree with diferent aspects from all of you, but as usual with SKs some fit a profile, while others have a profile created for them after they've been caught. Jack was the first of his kind and I don't think he would have fitted into any profile at all, he made his own up as he went along.
Jules |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3607
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Nicholas,
I have never said he would have fitted into any profile. Where did you get that idea? I am not relying on profiling here; only what we know of many SK:s so far. Not all of this information comes from profiling. Sexual serial killers is a common concept in the police world.
Besides, he was not the first killer of his kind; merely the first very notorious one -- There is a difference.
Diddles... is that you? From the chat room?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Nicholas Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 14
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
G'day Glenn, you misunderstood me mate, I was referring to Brads post. And yeah, it is me from the chat room. I'd like to get in there more bu that means I've got to get up at midnight to catch you guys.
Maybe tonight I'll be able to join you as it's bloody moggy here, too hot to sleep.
Hope to see ya there.
Take care
Diddles/Jules |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 252
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 11:39 pm: |
|
Glenn, where did I say that our boy raped or left signs of sexual sadism? I didnt. I dont disagree with anything you posted. My point is JTR isnt an SSK. This case is unique. In cases where facial mutilation occurs its generally accepted by working detectives that the perp either knew the vic or hated what the vic represented. We're talking hate crimes here...husband or wife overkilling a spouse, a racist killing, a woman who hates a certain type of man, or a man who hates acertain type of woman. The body mutilations arent IMHO anything more than to totally destroy the vic...to deconstruct them. This with the rapid nature of the series, (Tabran through Kelly)it is totally unlike ANY SSK on record. (Dont bring up Speck because he was a spree killer not an SK).Hmm..perhaps our boy was a spree killer with a specific vic type, Im not sure thats been explored. Anyway Im well aware of all the definations and phsyco babble and Im not buying into it.. Yours Brad |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3608
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 12:25 am: |
|
Brad,
Jack the Ripper is not in any way unique. It is the Victorian mystery context that makes him special, but his crimes are not really that much to brag about compared to other serial killings made later.
"In cases where facial mutilation occurs its generally accepted by working detectives that the perp either knew the vic or hated what the vic represented."
That is true. That is called depersonalisation, if I recall correctly, but the first option -- that the victim knew the killer -- I find highly unlikely in Eddowes case. (However, I do feel it's relevant as far as Mary Kelly is concerned, since I believe that to be a interpersonal domestic killing and not necessarily the work of an SK.)
We have actually examples, however, of SSK:s that also have attacked the face. I wouldn't say that it's common in any way, but it happens, and in my mind I feel it quite probable that the face of a woman also can act as a sexual symbol for the killer.
The point is, that I believe Jack the Ripper to be a SSK, mostly because
a) that is the most common driving forces for these types of killings (I am afraid that is not "psycho babble" -- take it or leave it)
but most importantly:
b) because of the fact that the womb most certainly was the target in Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes; the lower abdominal area attacked on Nichols and the same with Eddowes and Chapman but the womb taken out as trophy.
Male rage and hatred against women has usually its base in sexuality anyway, and as far as the driving forces behind the Ripper's crimes is concerned, it is my opinion that some sort of sexual fantasies triggered him to commit the murders. I can't see any other reason for it -- psycho babble or not; I think most criminal detectives would agree on this.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1866
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 4:07 am: |
|
Hi Glenn, Brad, Diddles  ,
The neck is also supposed to be sexually symbolic I believe.
I think, as Glenn says, that male rage and violence towards the opposite sex specifically could well have sexual roots: man reasserting what he believes is his rightful power over woman.
I do wonder if necks, and then wombs, were not quite enough for Jacky Boy by the end of September, hence the dabbling with facial carving and an extra organ taken away for jolly - or for tasting. If he had tried eating Annie's womb, he'd have been disappointed.
Then came MJK (IMHO!) and he was like a little boy in a chocolate factory; greed took over and the face was more than carved this time.
I suspect he had a love/hate relationship with himself and with his actions.
Love,
Caz
X |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 656
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I totally agree with you. As I've said before, I think especially the abdominal mutilations were mainly the result of curiosity about the female body and that the additional ones were caused by a need to destroy or obliterate his victims.
I share your suspicions about the love/hate relationship, which has kept me from rejecting the possibility of suicide.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1869
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Yes, I used to think this type of killer would never feel bad enough about his crimes to top himself. I still think remorse is not the word for it; more like self-obsession leading to self-loathing, self-pity and finally, if and when he loses the will - or capability - to kill for any reason, self-destruction or the loss of the will to carry on.
I would hesitate to describe this as a form of insanity, and I firmly believe that Jack knew deep down that the only person to blame was himself.
Love,
Caz
X |
Nicholas Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 19
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
G'day Caz , Frank, Brad, Glenn,
Brad, you reckon Jack wasn't a ssk. Fair dinkum mate, he went straight for the genitals after cutting the women's throats, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't to see what they'd had for breakfast. And Caz is right in saying that the neck is sexually symbolic - when a woman is getting ready for a big kiss, the next thing exposed in the following cuddle is an exposed neck (just before the swoon).
And Glenn gets it right with the facial mutilations being called dehumanisation (depersonalisation).
Frank, I'm not sure about the curiosity bit. Jack 'Ripped' his victims apart which indicates a frenzy rather than a curiosity. A curious person will pull one wing off a fly to see if it will fly in circles, not tear it to shreads to see if it will do the same thing.
I think I'll join this thread tomorrow as it's less heated than some of the others around at the moment.
Take care
Jules
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3613
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
I wonder -- unless it was meant as an ironic twist -- if we do not get a bit carried away here regarding the slit throats. The slit throat in my opinion has very little symbolic meaning; it is simply a very fast and silent way to kill someone -- it is used by some slaughterers and it is commonly used in domestic and street crimes.
To me, the throat cutting shows us that he wanted the victims killed quickly to avoid as little interaction as possible and to get it done with a minimum result of noise -- that is, a purely practical approach. I fail to see any kind of satisfaction in itself in it, though. The satisfaction lay in the mutilations.
True, Nicholas, depersonalisation is also referred to as "dehumanisation" (and is most common in domestic murders or where there is a personal relationship between the victim and the killer).
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1876
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I was thinking more of the throttling than the throat cutting, regarding sexual symbolism. The latter may have been his 'belt and braces' tactic to make certain they wouldn't start reviving. I think certain killers can get a thrill by feeling the power in their hands around their victim's neck - up close and personal, before the depersonalisation ritual begins.
I don't believe Jack had a personal relationship with Eddowes, but I do think Jack saw all his victims as one personal enemy to be destroyed each time, and not as the anonymous individuals they really were when he encountered them. The facial carvings IMHO reflect this artificially personalised - only to be depersonalised - relationship.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3620
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 6:56 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
Ah OK, the throttling... yes, that's true; strangulation and throttling might indeed often have such implication, as a release of sexual powers.
"I don't believe Jack had a personal relationship with Eddowes, but I do think Jack saw all his victims as one personal enemy to be destroyed each time, and not as the anonymous individuals they really were when he encountered them. The facial carvings IMHO reflect this artificially personalised - only to be depersonalised - relationship."
That is of course quite possible; I have seen other disorganized individuals and sexual offenders commit simiar cuttings in the face as we see on Eddowes (although of more random character than the "V" shapes), but as far as dehumanisation goes -- total destruction of the face -- that is mostly prominent in cases where the victim and the killer know each other closely. So I was more thinking of Mary Kelly here (I promise, I won't go there...  )
We must remember -- besides the popular point of escalation -- that dehumanisation is not present in any way in Nichols, Chapman or any of the other previous murders (if he did any of those).
To strongest link to the Ripper's fantasies and intentions lie still in the abdominal mutilations, as far as I am concerned.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 665
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Hi Jules,
Coming back to that curiosity bit, I don't know, maybe curiosity played a smaller part than I suggested in my previous post. However, I have two rather important psychologists to back me up.
One is Paul Britton, a British forensic psychologist. He once worked as a profiler on a case of a woman who was mutilated much the same as Jack's victims were and he said that the mutilation gave him the impression of a discovery and exploration. Which would mean curiosity.
The other is Micky Pistorius, who spent six years as a profiler with the South African Police Service, as head of their investigative psychology unit. In one case where the killer, among other things, had cut one breast off a victim she said the mutilation indicated childish curiosity.
I hardly think a curious murderer such as the Ripper might have been would cut off a leg of a living victim to see what would happen. That would take a completely different kind of killer and a completely different kind of curiosity. So, your pull-one-wing-off-a-fly analogy is rather lame.
I think it's feasible that he may have used his knife to get a feel of the body, to get a feel with the body, to see how this woman's body would react to it. What was to be seen inside her body. Something like that.
Anyway, I still think a mixture of curiosity and fierce anger was the driving force behind the mutilations.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Nicholas Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 21
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:15 am: |
|
G'day Frank, pleased to meet you.
Bugger!, just got a phone call and have to go to the pub to meet someone.
I'll get back to you soon.
Sorry mate
Jules |
Nicholas Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 22
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
G'day Frank, I'm back again.
You have cited two cases in which two professionals have expressed their opinions about the motives behind their killings. In the first you quote Paul Britton as saying he interviewed a murderer who stated that murdering his victim gave him an impression of discovery and exploration. And in your words "Which would mean curiosity".
I would probably rephrase tha and say "Which could mean curiosity.
The second person you mention also gives an opinion, not a fact, as to why the victims breast was cut off.
Don't get me wrong mate, I'm just suggesting that even though your collegues are eminently qualified to express their opinions they do not provide any conclusive evidence as to why Jack might have been just 'curious'.
I'll ignore your comment about my previous post as being 'Lame'. But I will enjoy this debate if you wish.
Sincerely
Jules |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 671
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Hi Jules,
To start off with the last remark of your previous post, first of all, sorry if I sounded cranky or anything. It was not supposed to sound like that. I just thought the analogy wasn’t a very good one and that ‘lame’ and pulled off wing fitted together. And I wasn’t saying your complete post was lame, I only said the analogy was ‘rather lame’.
Anyway, I didn’t put forward the two examples as evidence, let alone conclusive evidence, as to Jack’s possible curiosity. I just wanted to let you know my views aren’t just thought up by me, but that they’re based on opinions of experienced professionals. That, of course, doesn’t mean that it has to be so.
By the way, Britton and Pistorius aren’t my colleagues; I could only wish – or perhaps not, seeing that they’ve seen much more horrible things than I (hopefully) ever will.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
