|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Si
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 8:41 pm: | 
|
Hi guys. For anybody who is into research in a big way and has a few spare months/ years to do it is to check records for anybody in the whitechapel area who soon after 9/11/1888
Died
was inprisoned
confined to an institution
was deported
erm perhaps its a lifetimes work
best wishes to all ripperologists |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 130
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:18 am: |
|
Sorry to disappoint, but that is impossible in itself.
Many, many East Enders of the time are 'no names' - it would be impossible to find any records at all for quite a few people living in Whitechapel at the time. Further more, it's never been proved that what happened to the Ripper after the murders ceased was any of the things that you listed.
Suspects like Walter Sickert, for example, lived for another 54 years, and was never any of the above soon after the murders. The same goes for many high-ranking suspects (Though I personally don't regard Sickert as one, that was just an example.)
Sorry, no chance of that ever being possible.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 3:08 am: |
|
Hi Si,
How about Druitt who commited suicide or Tumblety or Chapman who fled london or Kosminski who was locked up in an asylum. We have to figure out why aid to the eastend stood down so quickly after the Kelly murder. I believe that the fact that extra police aid to the eastend stood down tells us that they were sure that there were not going to be any more murders. I mean to stand aid down so quick after the Kelly murders. Remember there were no murders commited the entire month October and aid remained. It had been almost six weeks before the ripper struck Kelly. Th polce patrols increased to over a 100 but in less time between the Stride Eddowes murder and the Kelly murder after the Kelly murder Patrols stood down. Why!
The suspects favord by the police who worked the case were Chapman who Abberline points to in 1903. Chapman moved to Newyork shortly after the Kelly murder. Kosminski, Who Andweson and Swanson believed to be the ripper. Kosminski was locked up in an asylum. The poblem with these two suspects is that it would not explain why aid to the eastend stood down so fast after the Kelly murder. Chapman was not a suspect at the time of the murders and he only became noticed after he was arrested for mudering his three wifes in 1903. Kosminski was not suspected untill he was identified by a witness and locked up some years later. Tumblety was a suspect at the time when the murders were commited. I believe that it was possible that Tumblety may have been questiond as early as October and I believe he was questiond just days after the Kelly murder. He fled London two weeks after the Kelly murder and was pursued by Scotlandyard to Newyork. Littlechild named Tumblety as a likely suspect. I do not believe he worked closely on the ripper murders but Douglaus Brown claimed to have seen a document were Macnaughten connected the ripper with the leader of a plot to assasinate mr. Balfour at the Irish office. Tumblety was an Irish sympathiser and may have been a fenian. Littlechild would have been involved in that sort of investigation. The discovery of Druitts body [In my oppinion] was the reason why police aid stood down. His body was discoverd early in December. Macnaughten Claimed that he had recieved private information that Druitt was the ripper and that Druitt's own family believed him to be. Manaughten's information was second hand. So who could have been his source? I believe it was James Monroe who was Sir Charles's replacement and may have been responsible for the patrol's standing down.
Your friend,CB |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 67
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
There was a tv documentary in which a man from "The Crime Museum" of London named John Ross expressed similar thoughts about why so much aid was stood down by Scotland Yard through December of 1888. He too believed that this was an indicator that the English authorities knew the Ripper had either went abroad, was jailed, or had died.
Though Druitt drowned himself, his body wasn't found in the Thames until Dec 31st. The aid being stood down by the Yard would coincide closer to Tumblety's Dec 2nd confirmed arrival in New York. |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 31
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
I think we need to know exactly why the met stood men down and when.
Decisions like this don't just happen within organisations. They take time. Someone has to propose it, discussion takes place, action is ordered, then has to be put into effect.
So whatever the date men were stood down, the decision probably dates from a few days or weeks earlier.
One possibility here is, of course, that concurrently with the MJK investigation, the Met got a new Chief Commissioner following Warren's resignation.
Munro may simply have had a different approach and changed the strategy - nothing to do with knowledge of a suspect.
Alternatively, could it be that Munro (recall the "he might give a hint" from Ruggles-Brise?) knew of a Fenian connection, and this changed the policy? Nick Warren, in the "Mammoth Book of JtR" has suggested that the amputation knives associated with the Phoenix Park (Dublin) murders - and one of which is now in Don Rumbleow's possession - might have been found in Miller's Court?
Any takers? |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 68
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Phil makes a good point about how we should consider the elapse of time between when an administrative decision is made and when its effect become noticeable. It's true that the decision to cancel the aid in Whitechapel may have come in November. As was mentioned, the changing of the guard in the Chief Commissioner's Office could have gotten the ball rolling on this. The Nov 24th sailing of the La Bretagne out of Havre could be considered as the spark for this as well. I'm just not in the belief that a man who privately killed himself in early December, then had his body discovered on New Year's Eve, is a likely cause for this. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 478
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Here's something worth considering: The heavy police presence prior to the Mary Jane Kelly murder was based upon the knowledge that Jack was working outdoors and that officers had a very real chance of wandering upon him in the act. With Kelly being killed inside and with winter coming, the old strategy at that point wouldn't make sense to continue fiscally.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Si
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Adam and CB thankyou for your very well researched and interesting comments. of course JTR could have been anybody and my comments were a little tounge in cheek  however I do believe he must have been removed from the streets for whatever reason and I dont think that he would suddenly become bored with murder and mutilation and simply stop and live a " normal" life i.e Sickert. Once again thanks guys for your interesting and top notch comments |
andrewgwb
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
I'm convinced that, despite everything I've read by many learned scholars on this subject, that JTR was a 'wild card'. None of the 'usual suspects' just don't fit. It is, unfortunately, due to this, that "fame is but fleeting - anonymity lasts forever".
Lets keep digging! It's like looking for the Loch Ness Monster. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Hi Guys,
Everyone seems to think and draw a conclusion that a man who commits such foul murders cannot help continueing, in the majority of serial offenders i agree.
However if the killer had for some reason no need to continue, as his compulsion had been finalized, in the death of the victim at Millers court. then what motivation would compell him to carry on?.
Richard. |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 46
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
I had always understood that the psychological explanation was that a man who had perpetrated such horrors as he did on MJK would not then be ABLE to stop. That something had been unleashed that could not again be bottled.
But I am no psychologist.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 482
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
I personally think the not being able to stop concept is quite overrated. A number of serial killers have stopped or switched to space out their killings over very, very long times.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 325
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 2:08 am: |
|
Dan,
Are you having us on?
To my untutoured mind,it would have certainly taken some motivation to crank the Ripper up to the frenzy he demonstrated in Millers Court.
And glancing at his previous efforts- (which included homicidus interuptus- and an almost immediate, and more successful second go on the same night), there is an obvious geometrical progression in the ferocity of each crime.
I cannot see the villain going home and feeling so good he never has a lapse ever again...
I wonder if the Ripper took his month-long break
between September and October because, he at least, thought he had been spotted.
Was "Munro's" comment that the Ripper should have been caught, and a later one that the whole case was a "hot potato" reflecting the fact a reliable witness had eyeballed the brute? And then because of higher up pressures to reduce police numbers in aid of the stakeouts,the murderer humiliated them by committing the most ghastly mutilation of all ? |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1280
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Hi John,
The frenzy he created in millers court was intense anger at the frustration he felt, that is why the murders escalated in verosity.
The fact is no other murders occured of this magnitude after, and the answer to that is the killings stopped after MJK.
Reasoning .
She was the reason why all the whitechapel horrors started and ended, simply that the demon in the killers head was dead, after poor Kelly was obliterated.
Richard. |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 57
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
I still don't buy this theory - Barnett would have to have been a psychopath of some sort to do what he did to the other girls.
This whole - "murder to get your girl-friend off the streets" - theory reeks to much of Midsummer Murders, Morse and Agatha Christie to me. The clever scheme that a clever detective can unravel because all the clues are there...
Life, in my experience simply doesn't work like that.
Why did he not lash out at someone like Maria Harvey who came to live with them - and apparently was the cause of him leaving Miller's Court. He must have HATED/been jealous of her. And the message would have been unmistakeable.
Given the possibility that all the women knew each other, and I cannot see it would have thrown the suspicion on him either.
Why not simply cut the throats of the earlier women?
No, sorry this: "there was a single motive and he just finished when it was done" approach, rings false. But that's just my humble opinion.
With regret,
Phil |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 483
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 1:36 am: |
|
Hi John,
No, I'm not having you on. I'm just tired of the assumption that all serial killers are unthinking beasts with no self-control at all. They can stop, slow down, go into reverse, change directions or pretty much anything else they want to if they set their mind to it.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Si
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Richard
She was the reason why all the whitechapel horrors started and ended, simply that the demon in the killers head was dead, after poor Kelly was obliterated.
can you elaborate please |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. "I personally think the not being able to stop concept is quite overrated. A number of serial killers have stopped or switched to space out their killings over very, very long times."
>>This notion conveys purely generic criteria regarding some sexual serial murders to interpretation of the Whitechapel murders. If you want to say that JtR wasn't influenced by a compulsion to kill, then you need to point out a reason to believe this in the empirical case evidence. On the other hand, there are definite compulsive elements in the empirical case evidence. He did a series of very similar killings in a short space of time, he had to make an effort to outwit the police in order to get them done, etc. This again sounds like an attempt to change or rewrite the case evidence.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 487
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
David,
Some people claim that serial killers can't stop. This has been proven false by several real-world examples. It's a false premise. I am merely pointing out that he could have been the type of personality to stop on his own, or that he could have been the type that wouldn't stop. In other words, we can't draw a firm conclusion.
If you claim that Jack couldn't have stopped on his own, then you are the one who needs to support that opinion with evidence. Unfortunately, what you do is assume you are right and refuse to prove your side, demanding instead that other people prove you wrong. That's completely opposite of the way intellectual debates work. But then that's been pointed out to you several times when you've pulled the exact same stunt on other threads...
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
John Dow
Police Constable
Username: Johnmdow
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
you said:
"The frenzy he created in millers court was intense anger at the frustration he felt, that is why the murders escalated in verosity."
This makes a lot of sense, but it raises a question in my mind. Is this anger consistent with the *requirement* (due to location and time of day) for silence during his "work"?
It strikes me that out on the street (or in Miller's Court- the room sharing internal walls with other tenents) in the small hours of the morning, it'd be essential to make as little noise as possible to avoid drawing attention.
Just a thought. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 10:17 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
"If you claim that Jack couldn't have stopped on his own, then you are the one who needs to support that opinion with evidence. Unfortunately, what you do is assume you are right and refuse to prove your side, demanding instead that other people prove you wrong."
>>Here is the supporting evidence, Mr. Norder, copied and pasted right out of the post you are reading:
I wrote: "...there are definite compulsive elements in the empirical case evidence. He did a series of very similar killings in a short space of time, he had to make an effort to outwit the police in order to get them done, etc."
I take my position that JtR likely couldn't have stopped on his own straight from the case evidence. However your position that we don't know whether he might or might not have been able to stop on his own is not supported by any case evidence of which I am aware. It is just your off-the-cuff personal opinion, and I find nothing in the case evidence to recommend it.
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 3:34 am: |
|
Hi Joe,
I noticed my mistake. Druitts body was not discoverd untill the 31st. His body was believed to be in the water for quite a while. I believe that he was last seen on December 4th? That would mean he was absent for almost four weeks. I think that someone could have known something was up sooner. I do not believe that they could have stood the patrols down unless they were sure that there would be no more murders. Public out cry would have been disastrous. This could be a reason why they waited a while before standing down the patrols. I am mindful that there were other murders that took place after the Kelly murder that some thought were the work of the ripper but to noticeable stand down aid to the patrols as early as late November or even early December may have caused problems and I am sure that they would have been very coutious of this fact. I have heard diffrent time frames in witch aid to the eastend may have stood down. The Royal conspiracy buffs claim that aid stood down almost immediately after the Kelly murder But I have heard as late as six weeks and I am more inclined to believe this time frame. Six week s after the Kelly murder would be around December 21. Assumeing that this time frame is not carved in stone then I believe we are talking right around the discovery of Druitts body. This does not convince me that Druitt was the ripper but it does persuade me that persons with the authority believed that Druitt was the killer. I believe that such a person may have been James Monroe and that Monroe may have been the source of Macnaughton's private information. The odd thing to me about the case is that Monroe and Macnaughten would have been aware of Tumblety and Littlechild would have been aware of Druitt and what ever evidence that they had against them would have been shared with the Detectives and yet they point to two different suspects. This seems to mean that the evidence against both men may have been slim or just maybe a Tumblety and Druitt connection. I have read that Druitt studied politics so he may have been more political then some give him credit. Either way I believe that one of those two men were the ripper.
Your friend,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 4:06 am: |
|
Hi Si,
Thanks for your responce. I am embarased when people refer to me as a researcher. I am just someone with an interest in the case and I have read a few books. I am real interested in learning about the case. However, this thread has attracted some real good researchers so thanks for starting the thread and I hope you are still keeping up with the post.
Hi Phil,
I have always been interested in a possible Fenian connection or any such group. If Monroe had evidence that ripper may have been a member of such a group then I believe that it is possible that Druitt may have been involved in such an organization. I firmly believe that Macnaughton believed that Druitt was the ripper. Any information that Monroe knew I believe Macnaughton would have known. If you believe Browne then Macnoghton does seem to imply that the ripper was involved with such people. If Druitt was involved with such an organization then he just may have known Tumblety. I realise how absurd I sound but the possibility may be worth looking into.
Your friend,CB |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 500
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
David,
You wrote:
"there are definite compulsive elements in the empirical case evidence."
Killers who stop also display compulsive elements, so this is not evidence.
"He did a series of very similar killings in a short space of time"
And the time between them grew longer and longer, which is evidence in favor of the idea that he could restrain himself from killing when he wanted to.
"he had to make an effort to outwit the police in order to get them done:"
*Every* killer has to outwit the police to get the killings done if he doesn't want to get caught. This is not evidence in favor of the idea that he couldn't stop, and, in fact, this is evidence that he could rationally choose to take strategies to avoid being caught, which supports the idea that he could have stopped if he thought killing again was too risky.
"I take my position that JtR likely couldn't have stopped on his own straight from the case evidence."
You take it straight from your opinions about the case evidence, twisted to fit what you already decided about the killer based upon your highly fanciful theory.
"However your position that we don't know whether he might or might not have been able to stop on his own is not supported by any case evidence of which I am aware."
Then you need to work on your level of awareness, as it's been discussed several times on these boards over the years you've been posting here.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 73
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 6:42 pm: |
|
Hello CB,
I always like reading your posts. I can tell you put a lot of effort into this topic, and you have a real drive for finding out what really happened in the Autumn of 1888. With all the bits of details that is involved in this Whitechapel subject it is very easy to get the names + dates mixed up. I have a tough time getting it all together myself. If all goes as planned I'll have three new 19th century newspaper articles about Tumblety in the quack's section of this casebook tomorrow. They'll be "new" only in the sense that the Casebook hasn't showcased them before. Have a great weekend, CB.
Malta Joe |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3013
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Radka,
"I take my position that JtR likely couldn't have stopped on his own straight from the case evidence. However your position that we don't know whether he might or might not have been able to stop on his own is not supported by any case evidence of which I am aware. It is just your off-the-cuff personal opinion, and I find nothing in the case evidence to recommend it."
That is bull. There is nothing whatsoever in the case evidence that proves that the Ripper couldn't have stopped on his own. In my personal opinion, I find it not very likely that he could have, but we can't just really be sure.
Since there actually exists examples of serial killers who HAVE been able to stop on their own or at least taken very long brakes for several years, we can't totally dismiss this possibility (no matter how more tempting that solution is). Nothing is certain in this case.
This is of course quite rare, but it has happened and it will probably happen again.
So I have to agree with Dan here, that although I believe there is little chance this might be the case here, the notion about a compulsive serial killer not being able to stop on his own, is quite over-rated and sometimes is given too much weight.
Your distinctive compulsion of labelling serial killers in certain frameworks and categories, Mr. Radka, will turn out more or less fruitless in the end. Although most serial killers have interesting behaviour patterns to consider, they are still different individuals and one serial killer will always in some aspects differ from the previous one or the next.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 28, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 3:07 am: |
|
Hello Everyone,
Mr. Radka, I have to concur with Mr. Anderson's point, i.e., not all serial killers are exactly alike. I think you'll agree that the Whitechapel murderer's MO, motivation, etc, etc, were uniquely different from other contemporary serial killers. I also think Mr. Norder's contention that the investigating detectives believed that the killer's MO indicated that he was an "outdoorsman", has merit. Based on these perspectives, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the decision to stand-down was founded on the belief that the killer might have simply went into hibernation with the onset of cold weather. Alternatively, he may have well begun killing indoors.
Investigating this possibility becomes one of researching the police files from that winter to see if there were any murders committed indoors having the same MO as the Whitechapel murderer's outdoor series.
As far as providing evidence to support one's contentions in this discussion go; I don't think it is an absolute necessity, because the nature of this thread is obviously speculative to begin with (See Si's initial post). It's not as if the contributors here are offering a critical analysis of a written document, like a journal article, or a Summary for example. Think of this thread as a set of preliminary discussions that may, or may not, lead to a lengthy collaborative research paper.
Relax my friend, have some fun with this. If anyone has something to say that they wish to be considered other then speculation, then I'm sure they'll make that known by include a reference or citation, etc, to support their claim. Let's leave the past in the past, and try to enjoy reasoning with other people's ideas for what they are in the here-and-now. Convenons-nous ?
Mr. Hill wrote: "Decisions like this don't just happen within organizations. They take time. Someone has to propose it, discussion takes place, action is ordered, then has to be put into effect.
So whatever the date men were stood down, the decision probably dates from a few days or weeks earlier".
I agree. The command structure of police organizations like Scotland Yard, operate on a semi-military basis. For example, the unit commander makes action decisions, in this case Commissioner Munro, in consultation with the immediate civil authority, i.e., Home Secretary Matthews. In order to make an informed decision about returning the supplementary patrol constables and detectives to their original billets, the new commissioner needed to be brought up to speed on the progress of the case by his predecessor, and the top investigating detectives, either in personal interviews or by reading their reports. Munro might have gathered and synthesized that information between the time he was appointed to replace Warren, and the time Warren actually left office, or shortly thereafter. The evaluation process could have taken as little as two days; returning the men to their original assignments is immediate, i.e., they simply report for duty at the station house to which they were previously assigned. Munro only had to confer with Matthews, consider his suggestions, if any, and then implement the plan, which could have been done the next day.
I also like Nick Warren's idea that there may be a Fenian connection between the Whitechapel murders, and the Phoenix Park murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Thomas Burke via the murder weapons. In their book, Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, Evans and Gainey suggest that Francis Tumblety may have purchased the knives for both events.
Does anyone know of any other references to finding the knife allegedly used in the Whitechapel Murders?
Thank you all for your time.
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “Killers who stop also display compulsive elements, so this is not evidence.”
>>Killers who are made to stop may display compulsive elements in their murders, but one is pushing against the tide to argue that killers who display compulsive elements in their murders and are not made to stop do stop on their own. Has it ever happened? All sorts of unlikely things happen every day in the big city—where there are millions of people, there are millions of chances for coincidental or adventitious matters to transpire. Put in a different way: Is it reasonable to argue that a killer who displayed the degree of compulsiveness JtR displayed stopped killing voluntarily without being made to stop, absent any empirical evidence concerning him to the contrary? Keep in mind JtR showed an increasing fetishistic preoccupation and compulsion with female sexual body parts as the murder series continued. He removed breasts, uteri, skinned and denuded Mary Jane Kelly in a manner indicating the abdomen an epicenter of compulsion, and so on. Add this to the fact that he committed a number of very similar murders in a very small physical area in a relatively short period of time, that he had to evade extensive and increasing police patrols in order to get the crimes done; that he was himself pushing against the tide, so to speak, in doing these things, and therefore showing compulsiveness. I don’t mean to imply he was a person defaulted entirely over to compulsions and unable to reason, change his plans, or have additional motivations beyond his compulsive ones. I mean only that compulsiveness is displayed convincingly at his murder scenes, and is done so in an accelerating manner over the series. Thus, even if it became clear to him that any non-compulsive purpose he may have had in the murders had been made completely impossible, or on the other hand that he had fully attained all his non-compulsive purposes in the murders, is it reasonable to think him capable of avoiding the compulsive element of his murdering personality permanently on his own? Without treatment and counseling? Without tranquilizers or psychoactive drugs? Abandoning it at the very height of his murder series? Why didn’t he resume killing when the police suddenly pulled down the extra patrols in Whitechapel a month after his last murder? It seems reasonable to me that we see in JtR an increasing fetishistic compulsion pushing ever more defiantly against a multitude of factors that would limit it, and therefore that unless we have direct evidence concerning JtR himself that he did stop voluntarily, we’d have to consider in the most serious way that he didn’t. When you say “Killers who stop also display compulsive elements” you aren’t saying who these people are, what compulsive elements they display, and under what contexts they display them—all you are doing is moving a generic element into analyzing JtR’s actions under conditions where there is no significant evidence of it applying to him, disposing of his context by changing the rules of its discussion under the table; whereas the context of JtR displayed in the empirical case evidence shows him personally engaging in increasing compulsive behavior. What are we to do about this on his part, simply forget about it? Why would that be wise?
2. “…the time between {JtR’s killings}…grew longer and longer, which is evidence in favor of the idea that he could restrain himself from killing when he wanted to.”
>>By the evidence, JtR was unable to restrain himself from killing again during the time intervals between his murders. Every time he killed he killed again, until he abruptly disappeared. The evidence thus shows him unable to restrain himself, not able to do so, and not somewhat able to do so. The notion that the increase of time between his second to last and last murders indicates that he was somewhat able to restrain himself is a weaseling one; there is no empirical evidence about JtR personally to support it.
3. “*Every* killer has to outwit the police to get the killings done if he doesn't want to get caught. This is not evidence in favor of the idea that he couldn't stop, and, in fact, this is evidence that he could rationally choose to take strategies to avoid being caught, which supports the idea that he could have stopped if he thought killing again was too risky.”
>>Let’s not forget that it was irrational of JtR to start killing inanely in the first place, and that each of his murders took place under conditions of it being irrational to kill. He was clearly not willing or unable to exercise the rationality to chose to not be a senseless murderer at all, or not to murder under conditions forbiddingly dangerous to him. Why then ascribe a rational personality to him, in attributing to him the wisdom to stop being a killer when it became increasingly dangerous to continue, just because he was smart enough to avoid the police? Being the killer that he was on the one hand and avoiding the police on the other are two different things.
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 8:21 pm: |
|
"Relax my friend, have some fun with this"
In that spirit, David, let me say that I picked up a copy of The Mask of Sanity at your recommendation. The Swinburne discussion is worth the price of admission alone.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
NC
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 8:38 pm: |
|
Si,
you may be interested in a discussion re. why JtR escaped detection.
../4922/7463.html"#DEDDCE"> |
Legion
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 367
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Build a very, very large and concaved mirror. When I say large, I mean on the order of 2 or 3 times the size of our galaxy large.
Travel about 3 or 4 times the speed of light with said mirror and place it somewhere just outside the distance light could travel since 1888.. travel back home (just as fast) and watch the light photons bounce off the mirror from 1888.
We could quite literally watch the murders take place, albeit from a birds eye view.
Short of that, I don't think we're going to stumble upon anything any time soon.. as much as it grieves me to say that 
Legion
"Our name is legion, for we are many"
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 584
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Hi Legion,
Wouldn't it be best to watch the mirror where you placed it before returning home. Otherwise, we would have to wait another 120 odd years for the light to make the return trip. Then again, it would give us all more time to guess at what's coming. Hmmm, I suspect the answer would be 42 
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on February 01, 2005) |
Legion
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 369
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Hey there Jeff -
Indeed, it might be best to stick around and wait for the light to hit our mirror. However, if we are going to do that, why not just travel that far out and simply wait. No large mirror required. Of course, keeping ourselves alive and transmitting the answer back to other folks, etc. might pose somewhat of a problem, but
And yes, the answer is always 42.
Legion
"Our name is legion, for we are many"
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 505
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 11:13 pm: |
|
Hi David,
First up, might I recommend paragraph breaks?
You wrote:
"By the evidence, JtR was unable to restrain himself from killing again during the time intervals between his murders."
By what evidence? If he was unable to restrain himself from killing during the intervals, then there should have been a lot more killings and the intervals should have been a lot shorter, unless this uncontrolled homicidal maniac was locked up 29 days out of every 30 or so.
"Every time he killed he killed again, until he abruptly disappeared."
That is a meaningless statement. Every time I eat an orange I'll eat an orange some other day until I stop eating oranges. The only reason the ending is abrupt here is because you assume that he would have killed over and over and over like a phonograph with a stuck needle.
"The evidence thus shows him unable to restrain himself, not able to do so, and not somewhat able to do so."
That's not just a circular argument, it's a particularly transparent one.
"The notion that the increase of time between his second to last and last murders indicates that he was somewhat able to restrain himself is a weaseling one; there is no empirical evidence about JtR personally to support it."
It's not weaseling, it's using logic. If you think he couldn't restrain himself, then, at a minimum, the intervals should be roughly the same or even closer together until he's put down like a rabid dog. The fact that he apparently chose to kill when he did and that he chose to space them out for whatever reason strongly implies that he could choose to space them out even longer or stop.
Again, I am offering a possibility. There is more than one possibility. If you want to deny that a possibility exists, YOU have to provide evidence against it. You haven't provided anything other than longwinded statements that say over and over that it must be true because you say it's true.
You have an opinion. It's one opinion. It's not the only valid opinion.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “{Mr. Radka wrote:} By the evidence, JtR was unable to restrain himself from killing again during the time intervals between his murders. {Mr. Norder wrote:} By what evidence?”
>>Specifically, by the empirical case evidence that a short time after Tabram was killed, Nichols was killed. And a short time after Nichols, Chapman. And a short time after Chapman, Stride and Eddowes. And a short time after Stride and Eddowes, Kelly.
2. “If he was unable to restrain himself from killing during the intervals, then there should have been a lot more killings and the intervals should have been a lot shorter, unless this uncontrolled homicidal maniac was locked up 29 days out of every 30 or so.”
>>Nobody said he was “uncontrolled.” I said JtR’s crime scene evidence indicates obsession or compulsiveness. Few if any compulsive sexual serial murderers can’t prevent themselves from killing day after day. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples in the annals of crime where an obsessive sexual serial murderer is inactive for a month or more between killings, but that doesn’t mean he can resist the impulse and not kill when it returns to him again. Please show us empirical, historical examples where a large number of sexual serial murderers report compulsiveness and also feel they must kill day after day. Bundy, Berkowitz, and Gacy were compulsive and didn’t stop until they were caught, but none of them killed day after day.
3. "{Mr. Radka wrote:} Every time he killed he killed again, until he abruptly disappeared. {Mr. Norder wrote:} That is a meaningless statement. Every time I eat an orange I'll eat an orange some other day until I stop eating oranges. The only reason the ending is abrupt here is because you assume that he would have killed over and over and over like a phonograph with a stuck needle.”
>>I’m not assuming anything about JtR as a sexual serial murderer with compulsive indications; I’m following the empirical evidence. The crime scenes indicate fetishistic obsession, and the man killed repeatedly, again and again, until he disappeared. You are making an invalid hasty generalization concerning comparison of my view of JtR with your eating oranges. There is usually no evidence that eating oranges is a matter of obsession. People eat oranges because they like the flavor or the health benefits, not because they are obsessed. However, if I had empirical evidence that your orange eating were obsessive in nature, then I would have to seriously consider that you’d always eat another orange at some point after you’d finished your most recent one if you weren’t stopped from doing so. In other words, if I had information that you were getting out of bed to rush to the supermarket at 2:00 AM just to buy an orange and then eat it immediately upon leaving the check out, or if you were stealing oranges from fruit stands to eat them, or if living in Florida you were screeching your car to a halt on the highway whenever you saw an orange grove and running recklessly across open fields just to pick and eat, then I’d have to consider you obsessed. And I’d consider you obsessed if you behaved in this way even if you didn’t do it every day. Repetitious behavior may or may not be compulsive; you have to look at the underlying facts to decide if it is.
4. “{Mr. Radka wrote:} The evidence thus shows him unable to restrain himself, not able to do so, and not somewhat able to do so. {Mr. Norder wrote:} That's not just a circular argument, it's a particularly transparent one.”
>>Circular? It follows the case evidence. He had five separate nights of murder.
5. “{Mr. Radka wrote:} The notion that the increase of time between his second to last and last murders indicates that he was somewhat able to restrain himself is a weaseling one; there is no empirical evidence about JtR personally to support it. {Mr. Norder wrote:} It's not weaseling, it's using logic. If you think he couldn't restrain himself, then, at a minimum, the intervals should be roughly the same or even closer together until he's put down like a rabid dog. The fact that he apparently chose to kill when he did and that he chose to space them out for whatever reason strongly implies that he could choose to space them out even longer or stop.”
>>As Mephisto says, “Show us da money, Mr. Norder.” Show us empirical evidence where an obsessed sexual serial murderer necessarily must kill at the same or ever shorter time intervals until he is stopped. Being able to space out murders and stopping entirely are two fundamentally different matters. Unless he’s totally psychotic or has a brain lesion the size of Minnesota he can always decide not to kill today. But the compulsion once exhibited would very likely return to him, and he’s not going to be able to deal with that on his own on a permanent basis—ordinarily, something of a controlling nature would have to happen to him to get him to stop.
6. ”Again, I am offering a possibility. There is more than one possibility. If you want to deny that a possibility exists, YOU have to provide evidence against it. You haven't provided anything other than longwinded statements that say over and over that it must be true because you say it's true. You have an opinion. It's one opinion. It's not the only valid opinion.”
>>There is no such thing as a “valid opinion.” Validity is a property of logical argument. I offer a tight, critically estimable logical argument taking the case evidence as a whole. On the other hand it appears to me that you use opinion only, and have only the semblance of logical argumentation behind your views. I submit that you offer arbitrarily derived remarks not backed up by empirical evidence either from the case or from studies of other sexual serial murderers, and not a cohesive logical position on anything. This has also been shown by Mephisto in his post of Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 2:47 am, on the A?R thread: “Actually Mr. Norder, Radka isn't in denial, because you haven't "pointed out" any mistakes he may, or may not have made. You've simply identified the theoretical concepts you don't agree with…Moreover, your arguments are scattered and disconnected…”
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 516
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Hi David,
You and Mephisto got the A?R thread closed down because of your constant personal attacks instead of focusing on the actual evidence. You obviously haven't learned anything since then. Mephisto's claims that I haven't pointed out any mistakes was a self-serving delusion then, and your repeating it here shows a lack of any substance to your arguments.
You keep talking about emprical evidence and facts, but you still haven't given any. You talk about how having killed more than once shows compulsion, but ignore that there are plenty of murders where people just stop after they finished whatever they did, or if the police were too close, and so forth. Merely having killed Nichols and then Chapman later and so forth proves nothing, because noncompulsive serial killers murder the first victim and then the second later and so forth.
Your opinion of what a "tight, critically estimable logical argument taking the case evidence as a whole" has been shown to be meaningless time and time again. You just toss words like that out to try to support your preconceived ideas. Your posts to this thread have been about the most poorly supported arguments you've ever made on these boards, which says a lot.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 7:05 pm: |
|
Readers to be warned: the fancy title and icons that appear at the end of the post above are merely window dressing. There's a flash, or more realistically, a flash in the pan, but absolutely no lingering substance. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 517
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 7:58 pm: |
|
Hi Scott,
I forgot to mention that you helped David and Mephisto get the A?R thread locked due to pointless personal attacks. Sorry for slighting your contribution there.
Now, do you have something substantive to say yourself about the topic at hand, or is this complaining about lack of substance your attempt to provide humor at your own expense?
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Uh,.... OK. For the umpteenth time, who are the qualified "experts" you know who reviewed and dismissed A?R ??? names please |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
Why are we talking about A?r here on the all we have to do to find JTR is.... thread?
back to the thread.
i don't think there is one particular thing that can be done to find JTR. rather it may tke many several things! |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Hi kiddies
Yes play nicely or this thread will get locked too. It would be nice to have a debate about the case without the invective and low blows.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 241
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 12:46 am: |
|
Dave said..." Why didn’t he resume killing when the police suddenly pulled down the extra patrols in Whitechapel a month after his last murder?"
Just out of curiosity,how would the Ripper know HOW depleted the police force was in early 1889?
I know John Ross [ of the Black Museum in London..] erroneously stated that this depletion was due to "the police knowing they had their man". This is incorrect. This,as we know,was due to the financial expenses incurred....so much for protecting the proles.
Furthermore,was the number of police patrolling The East End even mentioned in the press being depleted?
It may be correct to assess the situation in that the Ripper,regardless of whom he was or whom they were [ to be objective ] could not himself assume that the police presence was depleted after November 9th. It wouldn't have been a very smart move on the part of the police to announce or leak out such information. Besides,the police considered the case still "active" in 1889 [Coles and MacKenzie]...the people on this thread may not.
How |
Restless Spirit
Police Constable
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 3:13 am: |
|
Howard
Haven't spoke at you for some time. Last time you sent me pictures of you and your beautiful gals. Nice to be back. After reading your post one would assume that maybe Jack was an official connected with the police force or someone related to him was. I guess this points back to Cutbush although I still favor Barnett and or Kelly.
Hope we talk soon
judy
Restless Spirit
|
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
all we have to do to discover the ripper....is to wait outside Millers court at about 2am!
or has somebody from far in the future already done this? |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
Hello Mr. Brown,
You wrote: "I know John Ross [ of the Black Museum in London..] erroneously stated that this depletion was due to "the police knowing they had their man". This is incorrect. This,as we know,was due to the financial expenses incurred".
The murderer would more then likely be less interested in knowing the reasons why there were fewer policemen patrolling the streets. The fact that there were indeed less policemen on the street, would probably have had a greater affect on his behavior.
You also wrote: "Just out of curiosity,how would the Ripper know HOW depleted the police force was in early 1889?".
I think the simplest answer to your question is that in comparison to the number of policemen he saw during September and October, he observed far fewer from mid November onward.
You then wrote: "It wouldn't have been a very smart move on the part of the police to announce or leak out such information. Besides,the police considered the case still "active" in 1889 [Coles and MacKenzie]...the people on this thread may not".
Here, you're assuming that the killer could read and write, or could read and write English. And why would public knowledge of a reduced police presence be such a bad idea?
For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the police had devised a plan to give the killer a false sense of security, which would cause him to make errors of judgment, and thus increase the probability of his arrest. They announced or leaked it to the press that they were reducing the number of patrols to their pre-emergency levels, but instead of reducing the patrols, they continued to maintain them at full strength? The problem with this scenario is that the murderer can not read and write English, and had not observed any reduction in uniformed patrolmen, so all the time and money spent putting the plan into action is toilet fodder. Now wouldn't it be a smarter move to reach a broader audience, i.e., non-English speaking foreigners and the illiterate, by leaking the story to the press, and then taking every policeman over the pre-emergency level, and putting him in mufti? If the killer is illiterate or can't read and write English, and is relying on his instincts, then the visual observation that there are fewer uniformed policemen on patrol would achieve the same goal; i.e., it would give him a false sense of security, and cause him to make errors of judgment.
Although the investigation remained active in 1889, the number of policemen in the streets would never again reach the same level of deployment (for the Whitechapel Murders) that they attained during the Autumn of Terror.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
1. “Just out of curiosity,how would the Ripper know HOW depleted the police force was in early 1889?”
>>The murderer could see the stand down. He had two eyes, didn’t he? Why would he concern himself with any general depletion of the police force? He was only active in the streets of Whitechapel, wasn’t he?
2. “I know John Ross [ of the Black Museum in London..] erroneously stated that this depletion was due to "the police knowing they had their man". This is incorrect. This,as we know,was due to the financial expenses incurred....so much for protecting the proles.”
>>Ross is incorrect concerning Kosminski, but possibly not incorrect in general. Some high-ranking police thought Druitt was the murderer, and they “had” him in that he was dead, didn’t they? Further it is simplistic to say the patrols were stood down primarily because of finances. Finances influence everything. I am aware that some police used the term “finance,” but everything is ultimately economic, isn’t it? What was the reason behind the reason given? It’s right in the evidence.
3. “Furthermore,was the number of police patrolling The East End even mentioned in the press being depleted?”
>>He had two eyes, didn’t he?
4. “It may be correct to assess the situation in that the Ripper,regardless of whom he was or whom they were [ to be objective ]…”
>>No empirical evidence indicates more than one person were involved. The proposition that there were more than one is speculative, not objective.
5. “…could not himself assume that the police presence was depleted after November 9th. It wouldn't have been a very smart move on the part of the police to announce or leak out such information. Besides,the police considered the case still "active" in 1889 [Coles and MacKenzie]...the people on this thread may not.”
>>I wouldn’t think the police would be inclined to go out of their way to formally proclaim it in the press, but they wouldn’t be able to prevent anyone from noticing something of a change either. Short of capturing the murderer with conclusive evidence or obtaining a confession, the police would certainly consider the case active following the stand down.
|
John Carey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
“Restless Spirit” (and other contributors to this thread):
You wrote “Someone knew him for sure!! I feel that evidence will be discovered that will name "him" once and for all”
Correct on both counts. The police patrols were stood down by December 1888 by which time JTR had been committed to a private asylum for the past two months. At the same time, December 1888, minutes of a meeting of the Commission in Lunacy kept at National Archives (formerly the Public Record Office) at Kew in Surrey, show that Mr J Hoy and Miss Adele Mayer, two former staff members at the asylum, wrote to the Commission in Lunacy enquiring about the procedure for claiming a reward. It would be quite exceptional for the Commission itself to deal with such requests unless it was a matter of major importance. The relevant correspondence and the reply have gone missing from the files, but it can hardly be co-incidence.
The suspect, inmate number 689, is recorded in the asylum case book as depressed, uncommunicative, with a poor memory and saying he ”is accused of being JTR”. He is the only suspect I know of who is actually named as JTR in asylum records. He was discharged in October 1891 on lapse of his certificate which the authorities forgot to renew, but he was re-admitted the same day on an urgency order (which again would only be done exceptionally) and given the new case number 860.
Whoever was paying for him to stay in the asylum, stopped paying in February 1894 and he was then transferred to the London County Council Asylum at cane Hill near Croydon. He died there in 1898 from organic brain disease and full degeneration of the heart. His own family disowned him and let him be buried in a pauper’s grave at Cane Hill. The asylum records were closed to the public for a hundred years, but now they are open they confirm Anderson and Swanson’s half-remembered recollections of the Ripper ending up in an asylum – and also the story related years later by Dr Harold Dearden.
I have written more about him in Ripperana numbers #24 (April 1998) and #45 (July 2003). The asylum was Holloway Asylum at Virginia Water in Surrey, where separately in 1990 Nick Warren discovered the legend of JTR’s room in the basement of the main building. I assume the reason the police did not prosecute was the best they could hope for would have been a verdict of guilty but insane.
I hope I haven’t bored you. I will stop now.
John
|
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
John Carey
You could not possibly bore me when you are giving me such valuable information. I am not familiar with Ripperana I am with Ripperologist though.I would just love to see these articles and would certainly like to know more about Ripperana. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, curious though you did not mention names however Kosminski comes to mind. He is still a good suspect,however I do indeed think that his identity was known for certain at the time.
tks
Restless Spirit
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 111
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 9:56 pm: |
|
Mr. Carey is referring to Newland Francis Forester Smith, a failed barrister. Mr. Carey also suggests that FFS could have been confused with G Wentworth Smith Bell. As an interesting aside, there is an entry in the A-Z (1997, p. 162) under researcher "Steward Hicks" where he reportedly stated that Lady Anderson (the wife of Robert Anderson) said that the Ripper was interned in an asylum near Stone. |
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 1:37 am: |
|
Scott Nelson
Thanks for the info. I assumed your post was in response to John Carey's to me.
I have the A-Z book, I'll look it up.
thanks again
Restless Spirit
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
