|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Tim_308
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 10:34 pm: | 
|
Hi All,
I got to thinking about this case and it occurred to me that there is a lot of pure speculation about who the killer is. I am starting a post that is going to concentrate on facts about the killer, Jack the Ripper, and not on suspects. What I want to do here is compile a list of facts that outline the real killer. No suspects here, just facts, things we know are true or must be true in order for the killer to have committed the crimes.
Please avoid any and all speculation. Anything that talks about what the killer was thinking is speculation. Anything that is actually not known for sure is speculation.
For this post, I want to concentrate on a killer who fits what seems to be the most accepted details concerning the JTR murders. This being that the killer was a man who murdered five women in the East End of London in 1888. Assume that since no witness account can be 100% sure to be the killer, that there are no witness accounts.
The point of all of this is that I think when all is said and done here we are going to see how little we really know. And, we may also see some areas that need more concentration because when you deal in strictly facts, sometimes new ideas happen. So, I am going to start by listing what I think are facts that must be true or have been proven to be true about the killer in conjunction with the five generally accpeted murders in 1888.
1) The killer must have been of at least average (and possibly above average) strength to have committed the crimes. In other words, he must have had sufficient physical strength and stamina to wield a knife in such a deadly manner. This is an important, although obvious fact, because if you look around you there are many males who do not possess the physical strength to do such an act of violence.
2) The killer must have had some level of physical coordination to be able to manipulate his victims physically, wield the knife effectively, and escape from the scene of the crime. Once again, although obvious, this is important for the same reason as number one, many males do not possess this quality.
3) The killer must have been fully functional in terms of body to have committed the crimes. He must have had 2 arms, 2 legs, and been able to see. Once again, obvious, but it is a fact.
4) The killer must have been of a sufficient size to attack his victims. He must have been of a height and weight that allowed him to physically commit the crimes. This at least tells us that he was not a dwarf and that he was not a 90 pound man.
5) The killer must have been sane "enough" to know that what he was doing was something that he could be apprehended and killed for, and that he needed to avoid detection and capture. This tells us that if he was suffering from some disorder, he wasn't so far gone as to not be able to understand some parts of reality.
6) The killer must have been able to speak some English. I suppose this is debatable but overwhelmingly likely.
7) The killer must have been able to solicit and identify prostitutes. I think this is important and overlooked. Not everybody has this knowledge.
8) The killer must have had some kind of problem mentally. Trying to guess at this problem would be pure speculation, but there must have been something wrong with him mentally in order for him to do this.
9) The killer used a knife for all of the crimes. What this tells us is debatable. It tells us that he must have been sane enough to know not to carry it openly. Additionally, I think that it must be a fact that the killer either knew how to maintain a blade or had some means to get a new knife for each crime. Certainly the knife would have been dulled sufficiently by the end of the first few murders and some maintenance likely would have been needed for the MJK murder (although this is possibly speculation, it would require an experiment with a knife and some kind of experimental circumstance to see how it held up).
10) Regardless of what knowledge the killer had about what he was doing when he was cutting, he had some knowledge as how to handle a knife without wounding himself mortally in the process. I think that this is a good way to state it, there's no way to know what knowledge he had of the human body, but he certainly showed at least minimal proficiency in the handling of a blade (it wasn't the first time ever in his whole life that he held a knife). Additionally, he knew that there were organs inside the body, or he knew this after some of the crimes.
11) The killer was in the area on the nights of the murders. Obviously important and something used to corroborate or discount many suspects.
12) The killer must have had "some" money in order to solicit prostitutes. He must have somehow had access to some money. What this access is, is unknown.
13) He must have had some knowledge of the area. He must have at least been able to find his way around the basic streets of the area.
14) He must have had somewhere to go after the murders. I think that this fact could be extremely important in breaking the case. What places where available to go to at these hours of the night and which are within reach of the crimes. He could have had his own place or a family's place too, but he had to go somewhere that was open to him.
15) All of the victims were prostitutes or suspected of being prostitutes.
16) All of the victims were killed. This tells us that the killer either intended to kill all of his victims or had no control over himself when killing.
For right now, I'm not sure if there are any more facts about the killer. Certainly there are other facts about the case, but is there anything else that must be true about the killer? One thing I would like to say is that the notion that the killer hates women is not the same as hating prostitutes. No non prostitute women were killed, so hating women doesn't seem to be relevant.
Please feel free to add more facts, avoid specualtion, and debate my facts.
Please, no suspects. No FBI profiles. Just facts.
Thanks,
Tim |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 664
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Hi Tim,
I would add (#17?) that the killer quit killing for whatever reason. There are several explanations ranging from fear of being caught to being caught or being dead as well as others.
Stan |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2048
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Tim,
Without wishing to offend....12 15 & 16 are not facts.
12) Where is the evidence that indicates the killer had some money? Pulling for soliciting one does need cash agreed but nothing is ascertained with that regard. However, I must confess that my own belief ties in with yours, so I concede that as fact.....almost.
15) There is no evidence to suggest Eddowes was certainly a prostitute. Hearsay maybe but no factual evidence.
16) Susan Ward for example. 1 possible victim who was not killed. There may have been others in other areas. I do believe AP Wolf has set up a thread somewhere based on the topic of other possible assaults.....successful or not so successful. From studying other Serial Killers I cannot believe he had a 100% success rate.
Like I say, Im not being confrontational, just trying to clarify.
Regards,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:00 am: |
|
G'day,
18) I believe the killer had some means of making the victims feel safe. If this wasn't a disability, (social or physical), it was a familiarity.
19) I believe he had to have a good knowledge of the East End and a familiarity with the police beats, to calculate how much time he had to murder the victims and know the best escape routes. This points towards a resident of the East End but I know there are those who'd say this is speculation.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 08, 2005) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2049
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:25 am: |
|
Leanne,
Again, these are not facts.
You dont have to reside in an area to know the layout of an area. I do not live in Whitechapel (though I did many moons ago) but I get around easily.
Cheers
Monty
It begins.....
|
Tim_308
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Excellent point Stanley! Very true, the killer certainly quit killing for some unknown reason. That makes 17 facts. |
I Know Jack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
Having murdered Eddowes, the killer, at some point passed along Goulston Street.
There are no other facts known about Jack the Ripper. |
Tim_308
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
Monty,
For 12, I agree that it may be debatable. But a prostitute is not even going to consider sex without confirming that some sort of payment will be had, money or otherwise. It's not like a same as cash w/no interest offer! It is almost overwhelmingly likely that the killer had money for this. So, I think we can at least agree that the killer either had money, material, or a reputation that made the prostitutes believe they were going to be paid.
For 15, If you read #15 carefully, you will note that I wrote that all of the victims were prostitutes or "suspected" of being prostitutes. You confirm that Eddowes was suspected of being a prostitute.
For 16, as you will see I stated at the top that this post only concerned the 5 victims most typically accepted as the ripper victims and not others.
I Know Jack,
Good point for #18, he did pass at some point on Goulston Street.
Leanne,
Anything that begins with "I believe" is speculation. And, not to be confrontational, but your points are pure speculation. In other words, the murders "could" have happened without what you suggest being true at all.
Thanks for the input everybody.
Anymore?
Tim |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
I agree with Monty,
esp regarding point 12
Jenni
"Are you hanging up a stocking on your wall?"
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 890
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
All,
It is not a fact that the Ripper passed along Goulston Street at some point. It is probable that he carried the apron half from Mitre Square to a Goulston Street entryway, but there are alternate explanations that at least don't violate the laws of physics.
Don.
(Message edited by supe on December 08, 2005)
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 118
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 10:11 pm: |
|
I don't think I would go as far as saying Jack was able to make the prostitutes feel safe. I think it was more likely that neither his appearance nor his manner nor his actions made them feel unsafe. If that makes sense.
c.d. |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 83
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Tim_308 wrote:
1. “I got to thinking about this case and it occurred to me that there is a lot of pure speculation about who the killer is. I am starting a post that is going to concentrate on facts about the killer, Jack the Ripper, and not on suspects.”
>>Why do you think that the solution to excessive speculation must be facts? I think the cause of excessive speculation is facts. The reason we have so much speculation is because we are on a kind of Ripperlogical jihad to accumulate ever more facts. Richard Whittington-Egan is the author who more-or-less accidentally got all this started—read about him in the A-Z. He encouraged people to engage in first-line research, using original documents of the period. Because there aren’t enough facts about the case available to solve it, all this did was trigger a tsunami of speculation. The Maybrick Diary, the Bell Tower, Patricia Cornwell, and a hundred other books provide a fact-fact-fact basis of unsupported speculations. As long as you present empirically verifiable facts, you can nowadays publish anything you want about Jack the Ripper.
2. “What I want to do here is compile a list of facts that outline the real killer. No suspects here, just facts, things we know are true or must be true in order for the killer to have committed the crimes. Please avoid any and all speculation. Anything that talks about what the killer was thinking is speculation. Anything that is actually not known for sure is speculation.”
>>Why is the realm of things that are “known for sure” limited to facts? Can’t we know some things for sure that we don’t experience directly? What if we have a certain point of logic confirmed from two, three or more different angles by facts? On the other hand, the petard on which Ripperology has hoisted itself is the accumulation of facts.
3. “For this post, I want to concentrate on a killer who fits what seems to be the most accepted details concerning the JTR murders. This being that the killer was a man who murdered five women in the East End of London in 1888.”
>>”The most accepted details” equals the facts? All sorts of bizarre stuff have been totally accepted by Ripperlogical audiences over the years. That the killer wore a silk top hat, for example. That he was insane. That he operated in a frenzy. That he was beneath the level of a gentleman. And so on.
4. “Assume that since no witness account can be 100% sure to be the killer, that there are no witness accounts.”
>>If you’re looking for “100% sure” you don’t want to be a Ripperologist. 100% sure is the unmanliest form of Ripperology.
5. “The point of all of this is that I think when all is said and done here we are going to see how little we really know. And, we may also see some areas that need more concentration because when you deal in strictly facts, sometimes new ideas happen.”
>>Historically, when Ripperology “deals strictly in facts” the flow valves of the sewage plant are opened, and every piece of unrelated filth passes in.
6. “So, I am going to start by listing what I think are facts that must be true or have been proven to be true about the killer in conjunction with the five generally accpeted murders in 1888.
1) The killer must have been of at least average (and possibly above average) strength to have committed the crimes. In other words, he must have had sufficient physical strength and stamina to wield a knife in such a deadly manner. This is an important, although obvious fact, because if you look around you there are many males who do not possess the physical strength to do such an act of violence.”
>>How much strength does it take to strangle a lady into semi-consciousness, then cut her up? Only average strength, I think, if you’ve got a sharp knife with a point on it.
2) “The killer must have had some level of physical coordination to be able to manipulate his victims physically, wield the knife effectively, and escape from the scene of the crime. Once again, although obvious, this is important for the same reason as number one, many males do not possess this quality.”
>>You’ve just narrowed the suspect list down to 25,000 men living in Whitechapel.
3) “The killer must have been fully functional in terms of body to have committed the crimes. He must have had 2 arms, 2 legs, and been able to see. Once again, obvious, but it is a fact.”
>>Now it’s down to 24,850. Good job.
4) “The killer must have been of a sufficient size to attack his victims. He must have been of a height and weight that allowed him to physically commit the crimes. This at least tells us that he was not a dwarf and that he was not a 90 pound man.”
>>23,850.
5) “The killer must have been sane "enough" to know that what he was doing was something that he could be apprehended and killed for, and that he needed to avoid detection and capture. This tells us that if he was suffering from some disorder, he wasn't so far gone as to not be able to understand some parts of reality.”
>>22,850.
6) “The killer must have been able to speak some English. I suppose this is debatable but overwhelmingly likely.”
>>Hiring a prostitute is a pretty basic act. You don’t need to say a whole lot. I’ll give you 21,850.
7) “The killer must have been able to solicit and identify prostitutes. I think this is important and overlooked. Not everybody has this knowledge.”
>>Prostitutes were as common in Whitechapel as pigeons! Virtually everyone knew about them and their work. 21,500.
8) “The killer must have had some kind of problem mentally. Trying to guess at this problem would be pure speculation, but there must have been something wrong with him mentally in order for him to do this.”
>>No! He could have been a psychopath, with no mental illness. However, I’ll give you the population of psychopaths and mentally disordered people taken together. 3,800.
9) “The killer used a knife for all of the crimes. What this tells us is debatable. It tells us that he must have been sane enough to know not to carry it openly. Additionally, I think that it must be a fact that the killer either knew how to maintain a blade or had some means to get a new knife for each crime. Certainly the knife would have been dulled sufficiently by the end of the first few murders and some maintenance likely would have been needed for the MJK murder (although this is possibly speculation, it would require an experiment with a knife and some kind of experimental circumstance to see how it held up).”
>>Almost everybody maintained knives in Whitechapel. People served as their own butchers and meat cutters quite often. Grinding wheels for sharpening knives were available in many places. 3,500.
10) “Regardless of what knowledge the killer had about what he was doing when he was cutting, he had some knowledge as how to handle a knife without wounding himself mortally in the process. I think that this is a good way to state it, there's no way to know what knowledge he had of the human body, but he certainly showed at least minimal proficiency in the handling of a blade (it wasn't the first time ever in his whole life that he held a knife). Additionally, he knew that there were organs inside the body, or he knew this after some of the crimes.”
>>This is general information that almost everyone has. 3,400.
11) “The killer was in the area on the nights of the murders. Obviously important and something used to corroborate or discount many suspects.”
>>So were thousands of people. 3,400.
13) “The killer must have had "some" money in order to solicit prostitutes. He must have somehow had access to some money. What this access is, is unknown.”
>>Prostitutes were so cheap, almost everyone had enough money. You could hire one for a loaf of bread. 3,100.
13) “He must have had some knowledge of the area. He must have at least been able to find his way around the basic streets of the area.”
>>People of the day walked wherever they need to go. Many people knew the streets well. 2,900.
14) “He must have had somewhere to go after the murders. I think that this fact could be extremely important in breaking the case. What places where available to go to at these hours of the night and which are within reach of the crimes. He could have had his own place or a family's place too, but he had to go somewhere that was open to him.”
>>Well, a number of people lived in lodging houses where it would be difficult to return after the murders. But thousands lived in tenements where return would be possible. 2,800.
15) “All of the victims were prostitutes or suspected of being prostitutes.”
>>2,800.
16) “All of the victims were killed. This tells us that the killer either intended to kill all of his victims or had no control over himself when killing.”
>>2,800.
7. “For right now, I'm not sure if there are any more facts about the killer. Certainly there are other facts about the case, but is there anything else that must be true about the killer? One thing I would like to say is that the notion that the killer hates women is not the same as hating prostitutes. No non prostitute women were killed, so hating women doesn't seem to be relevant.”
>>Maybe it is relevant. I thought you said that you were going to “not talk about what the killer was thinking,” because that is speculation.
8. “Please feel free to add more facts, avoid specualtion, and debate my facts.
Please, no suspects. No FBI profiles. Just facts.”
>>Narrowing it down to 2,800 is essentially not narrowing it down at all. I hope you’ve learned that you’ve got to start with some essential characteristic of the murderer that lets you home in on him much more closely.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 834
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 1:25 am: |
|
>>No! He could have been a psychopath, with no mental illness. However, I’ll give you the population of psychopaths and mentally disordered people taken together. 3,800.
Actually if you are going into the realms of what is "strictly possible" you should add Sociopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder to this list, both of which are also not strictly defined as a mental illness but both of which would allow of a person carrying out the deeds that the Ripper did.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 242
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 3:27 am: |
|
I think it fair to say that the primary aim of the Ripper was to mutilate.
The killings of course were neccessary to accomplish this.
Only in Kelly's room was it possible to take the mutilations to a point where the killer may have been satisfied.
Knowing the street was never likely to offer an oportunity like Kelly's room,and possibly because he had been disturbed with more than one of the victims before Kelly,the Ripper did what others had done before him,and stopped killing.
Killing for killing's sake, may never have been a desired objective. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2052
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 3:47 am: |
|
Tim,
My apologies. I suffer from AP-ism.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
Hi All,
So for accuracy's sake, 18) could be that the killer took half of a victim's apron and it was found in Goulston St.
19) could be Harry's point that the killer had a need or desire to mutilate his victims after death, sometimes removing organs from the body/scene.
20) could be an age range, ie the killer was born between, say, 1828 and 1872?
Love,
Caz
X |
Nicholas Smith
Inspector
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 152
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
G'day 'I Know Jack',
Sorry mate but we do know some more things about Jack namely he murdered 4 women in Whitechapel and Spitalfields, he left evidence behind him ie: Polly's bonnett, Catherines cigerette case, Mary's handkerchief.
Wanna have a debate mate?
Jules |
Stephen Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Tim,
An excellent approach to all this. Cut through all the obfuscation and stick to the facts. People may nibble away at your list in little ways but I believe it is extremely well thought out and sticks to the known facts. Well done. One other 'fact' is that after the Mary Kelly murder police activity was scaled down and the amount of stuff in the the police files, like one writer said, disappeared like bathwater down the plughole. Who or what 'Jack the Ripper' was was known to the authorities sometime between the murder of Kelly and Alice McKenzie, as far as I can see, despite what all those big time police officials spouted in later years. A cover-up occurred. That I think is a 'fact'. |
Tim_308
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 10:44 pm: |
|
I haven't learned anything from you except that you're obnoxious.
I'd rather narrow it down to 2,800 people than deal in a world of far-off crap that only deals with total speculation, usch as the killer must have had a bad childhood.
Certain facts exist, and nowhere have I seen a list that was not contaminated with speculation. And you'll see regarding the hating women line that it was not included.
I don't need to learn anything from you, if you don't want to contribute to my post in a positive way, you don't have to. Other people obviously want to.
As far as points 1 and 2, I am just wondering are you one of those really fat out of shape people or are you one of those people who didn't know how to throw a baseball in high school? But when it comes to arm chair detectiving, you can easily ascribe what strength it would take to strangle somebody never having had any strength or athletic ability yourself in real life? We can eliminate you as a suspect if any copy cat crimes happen in the near future!
Go try an experiment and see how hard it is to hold somebody down that is fighting for their life. I've seen tiny women in a hospital take 4 guys to hold them down. Now, if you want to run a real experiment by getting volunteers of appropriate sizes as the victim we could answer your question concerning how much strength it takes to strangle somebody. |
cazmaccas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 1:16 am: |
|
Please note as a person who has nursed paedophiles, psychopaths and all sorts of mentally disordered people, they can be very persuasive; are extremely strong when angry; and can act as sane as you or I.
This is a well known fact in nursing / medical circles.
C |
leprechaun
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 8:53 am: |
|
The killer(s) were opposed to:
(1) Prostitution
(2) Alcohol
(3) Unbelievers
And
(4) Warren :-) |
Nicholas Smith
Inspector
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 153
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
G'day Tim,
I've studied martial arts and it doesn't take that long to incapictate a person. Maybe 10 seconds at the most.
Jules |
Tim_308
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 10:19 pm: |
|
Stephen,
Is there there any empirical data to support that the police files disappeared at that time?
Also, is there an exact date that the police attention showed that police had made a conscious decision to do so? Is there a memo or file or something?
Good points!
Thanks,
Tim |
Tim_308
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 9:43 pm: |
|
Hey All,
Thanks for the great responses. I am sorry about my little sidetrack towards David Radka, but I found his post irritating.
I really like the positive responses. I am hoping that if we widdle this down to all the facts that maybe we can do something with the info or maybe apply to a known (and likely suspect) or maybe even get rid of some suspects. But I really don't want to go there. I want to ignore all suspects for now.
Cazmaccas and Jules, thanks for the input about strength and incapacitation. Maybe you guys can elaborate on those ideas to help out. Maybe answer some questions:
Jules,
What kind of knowledge would be needed to quickly incapacitate somebody? You are probably far more knowledgeable than I am, but I have been taken Judo, and the movements are not very effective w/out practice. What method or movement would be the best to do so? What physical abilities would be necesary to do so? Would the killer have had to practice this or be experienced or could a layman do it? Remember the killer had a 100% success rate.
Cazmaccas,
Could you elaborate on your knowledge? Is the strength only available when angry? Does it have a trigger? Are you saying that there's a possibility that the killer wasn't necessarily any stronger than average, or maybe weaker than average, except when he got into a certain state? Any elaboration or case study ot whatever would be excellent.
Caz,
Very good points about the age, apron, and mutilation. Those can definitely be worked in as facts. We know mutilation after death occurred, although we don't really know why.
As far as the age range goes. Are there any ages that we can agree on that are totally out of the question for the physical strength or other conditions aspects? I don't want to use any FBI profiling here (the 25-35 thing). But certainly a reasonable person can say that the killer was not 85 (it's not a fact, but ..... ). Obviously the killer was probably not 8 years old either. Caz's years would make the killer between 16 and 60. Like I stated in the intro I want to avoid speculation, but I don't want to avoid common sense. Is there a reasonable age range that everybody feels may be legit enough to consider an almost certainty. Certainly Caz's suggestion is reasonable, any other opinions?
Thanks all, let's complete this list!
Tim |
Tim_308
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
There's a question I have that I'd like to know if there are any facts about it. Do any of the medical reports state whether o rnot any of the victims had a venereal disease of any kind?
Thanks,
Tim |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Hi leprechaun,
The killer(s) were opposed to:
(1) Prostitution
(2) Alcohol
(3) Unbelievers
And
(4) Warren :-)
I'm not sure you can state any of that as a fact.
Anything to do with Jack's motivation, justification or beliefs, moral or political, must remain firmly in the area of speculation.
Just to take one example, Jack could well have been a habitual user of prostitutes and/or alcohol himself; he could even have maintained a relationship with a prostitute and kept that part of his life entirely separate from his killing habit. Some practical experience with either vice could have helped him secure the raw material for his own peculiar vice.
Jack was a serial killer, and this breed is known to use any and every excuse under the sun to explain or justify - to themselves as well as to the world - their very specific addiction.
Hypocrisy and lies are par for the course, and Jack would naturally have been opposed to anything or anyone with the potential to get in the way of his secret habits. If you try to narrow it down to certain groups, people or behaviours, that fired him up, you are throwing him a lifeline in his sea of unreality, because nothing and no one ever concerned him more than himself and his own behaviour.
The rest would have had equal status as pawns, to be used as and when it suited him.
Love,
Caz
X |
Stephen Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Tim,
Thanks for your comments on my post to you here. Your's is always a popular approach which gets people thinking (some of them for a change). Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the solution. Police activity on the streets was definitely scaled down a month after the Kelly murder according to people on this website who have researched it. I'm afraid that I can't remember where I saw this here but I most certainly did. The actual phrase used was that police patrols were 'stood down'. As to the files, I think I could have expressed myself a little better as you seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I meant that the volume of stuff in the files declines practically overnight because nobody is much interested anymore, rather than because people are destroying information, though that must of course have happened as well. |
leprechaun
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
Hello my dear girl Caz,
If my conclusions were based solely upon the observation that each victim could be classified as either an 'unbeliever'(Juw?) or an alcoholic or a prostitute, then such conclusions should not be listed as 'facts' known about the killer. Very true.
BUT...if I KNEW who the killer 'was' and these were the reasons he gave for why he killed, then these 'reasons' could be considered 'facts' known about the killer, not necessarily 'facts' regarding the actual reason he (or they) killed. Of course he could have been lying or he might have been telling the truth as he believed it to be while in reality being driven by something unknown even to himself.
It is a 'fact' that the "Son of Sam" killer initially claimed to kill on instructions from Harvey the devil-dog. Leave it to the psychologists to say he really killed because he resented his mother. Who is to say which reason was really the truth? :-) After all, it's so much nicer than saying he killed women because they thought he had a repulsive pig face, which, of course, was the real reason he killed them. :-O
In Jack's case, the people who stared at and ridiculed him, were frequently non-religious, alcohol fueled, ragged and thin, prostitutes. To him they were "worthless" and in every way, the complete opposite of himself. He was 'separated' from others by his piety and 'protected' he believed, because of it. It's highly unlikely he drank alcohol and his long hair must have made him an easy target for verbal abuse. It's easy to imagine how all this inner rage could be converted into a 'mission' against prostitution and alcohol. But, in truth, I think he really killed on instruction from the God of Winter, who was much better looking. :-) It's really quite element..ary. |
I Know Jack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Nicholas Smith said "G'day 'I Know Jack',
Sorry mate but we do know some more things about Jack namely he murdered 4 women in Whitechapel and Spitalfields, he left evidence behind him ie: Polly's bonnett, Catherines cigerette case, Mary's handkerchief. Wanna have a debate mate?
Jules"
Yeah, bring it on, and don't call me mate. You don't know me!
Apologies for my omission. Obviously if there weren't bodies, victims etc there would be no murderer. I mistakenly assumed that it was taken as read that there were certain established facts to the whole subject. I did not allow for the picky argumentative moronic squabblers that have little to contribute and nothing to offer aside from being picky.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 788
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
"The rest would have had equal status as pawns, to be used as and when it suited him."}
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read this is that you say that Jack, as a serial killer, had a very big ego and manipulated people when(ever) it suited his purposes. I just don't know if this is necessarily true. Could be, but I don't think that each and every serial killer is like that. For instance, I don't see Richard Chase like that.
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: 2431
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Yes, I see your point. But if Jack's priority, in the latter half of 1888, was getting away with repeated acts of murder and mutilation (and the fact is, he did get away with it), then the type and location of his victims could not have suited that purpose better.
I'm just not sure that leprechaun isn't complicating this basic, practical strategy by speculating that Jack killed drunken prostitutes because he considered them 'worthless'. They were far from worthless to him freshly killed.
If no drunken prostitutes had been available for Jack to play his games with in 1888, would he have had no urge to prey on the next safest female option, whatever that was, and whatever manipulation might have been required?
Love,
Caz
X |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 837
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Tim
I agree with your concept here, and have to say (not for the first time) that I am entirely bewildered by Mr Radka's objections. He is absolutely right that the case cannot be solved on facts alone, that a certain amount of intuition and logical deduction is required, but before you can begin that process you need to have the right starting point otherwise your conclusion will be flawed. And surely the right starting point is "what do we know?"
That said, I think the exercise needs more than simply stating what we know. I am personally shortly going to debunk one of the long accepted "facts" of the case. On investigation I find that the "fact" in question actually springs from one journalist who in all probability was exaggerating his knowledge to make himself look more "in the know" than he actually was. Yet it has been repeated so often that now everyone simply accepts that this is the way that it was.
So what I am saying is, it isn't enough just to say "what do we know?" without adding the caveat "and how do we know it?"
"The sun machine is coming down, and we're gonna have a party."
Visit my website - http://www.alansharp.34sp.com/weblog/
|
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Allen,
Yes, and...what are we missing?
Carolyn |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 682
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
"On investigation I find that the "fact" in question actually springs from one journalist who in all probability was exaggerating his knowledge to make himself look more "in the know" than he actually was."
All I want for XMAS is a finding that Bulling didn't author any of the Letters.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Tim_308
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Ok Alan,
Your point is well taken. Let's continue to come up with facts and also analyze how we know it. Can we please not get sidetracked with issues like people being pawns and playing games. We're not making a movie here. There have to be more facts. I ultimately want to have a list of facts that are indisputable, and I like Alan's idea of including why we know them. Any more facts that anybody wants to suggest, maybe somebody with firsthand knowledge of the area, the above mentioned stuff about a lull in police, etc?
Thanks,
Tim |
leprechaun
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
As a 'mission-oriented' killer, he considered them 'worthless' to society. By culling them out, he believed he was improving the world. No one can be sure exactly what the utility was. I will not speculate on that. And it's also possible that he was used by the second killer for some other 'grand' purpose. He may have been a 'visionary' type as well, but I can't prove that yet.
Interestingly, though, the fact that the police of the time could not possibly have known what police and psychologists know today regarding serial killers -- which are, of course, a rare breed -- is the very reason that the case can be solved today, at least in part. |
Bea Frederick
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Hi there,
Well, I’ve looked through quite some of these threads here and I could nowhere find something that answers my questions.
It seems to me, that the women felt quite secure.
Some of them had new things, like rings and a bonnet. Green velvet.
They all seemed pretty poor to me when not even being able to pay for a nights bed.
How could they afford such things?
Seems more like those things where recent presents.
There is no blood on the clothes.
Marks on the face like from a hand. Thumb print on right cheek.
Seems to me they were all bent over and the killer stood right behind them, holding the face and cut through the throat. I read somewhere that he was left handed, so that kinda fits
And in times you know that Jack the Ripper is on the hunt, would you turn your back on someone in a dark hallway without feeling really secure?
When someone is not seeing an attack coming and not expecting it, you need no strength at all to cut a throat with a sharp knife.
I would really like to hear what you all think about this
Bea |
Bea
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Hi there,
Well, I’ve looked through quite some of these threads here and I could nowhere find something that answers my questions.
It seems to me, that the women felt quite secure.
Some of them had new things, like rings and a bonnet. Green velvet.
They all seemed pretty poor to me when not even being able to pay for a nights bed.
How could they afford such things?
Seems more like those things where recent presents.
There is no blood on the clothes.
Marks on the face like from a hand. Thumb print on right cheek.
Seems to me they were all bent over and the killer stood right behind them, holding the face and cut through the throat. I read somewhere that he was left handed, so that kinda fits
And in times you know that Jack the Ripper is on the hunt, would you turn your back on someone in a dark hallway without feeling really secure?
When someone is not seeing an attack coming and not expecting it, you need no strength at all to cut a throat with a sharp knife.
I would really like to hear what you all think about this
Bea |
Tim_308
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 12:24 am: |
|
Ladies and gentleman, can we stay away from any kind of speculation please.
Thanks,
Tim |
Tim_308
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Stephen,
In regards to the decline in police activity. I know that police activity can waver when there is a lull in the crimes. I would be curious to see how the lull in police activity after the MJK murders compares to any lulls after the other murders. Stephen or anybody else, do have any information on this? Providing it is factual and somehow based on empirical evidence.
Tim |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 9:04 pm: |
|
A man that makes prostitutes feeling safe is not a fact, these woman were drunk and needed money, they didn't have the luxury to feel completely secure with all their clients.
But on the subject of money, would they have been paid before or after sex. If there was a tendency for afterwards then facts about Jack needing to have money become irrelevant.
But I found it interesting that somebody mentioned knowing the police beats, it's not something I'd thought of before. I wouldn't say a fact, it's impossible to know how much luck played into Jack's hands. But does anyone suppose that on the increase of police presence in Whitechapel that Jack took meticulous note of their times?
Wintergreen |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
