|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sandra
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 8:48 pm: | 
|
1. Who do you think Jack the Ripper was and why?
2. Is it at all possable that Jack the Ripper was actually a woman and why?
3. Is it possible that Jack the Ripper was not one man, but many?
4.What do you think the weapon used was and why?
5. How do you think the victims were killed and why?
If you can answer any of these questions I would be much oblidged. Thank you!
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 880
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Hello Sandra,
I have a feeling you will get some unwelcome comments, with yout five questions.
However I am not agressive so here goes.
1] Joseph Barnett, common law husband of the last victim, there are a lot of points in favour of this person , being guilty.
2] I would say that the chances of 'Jack' being a woman are remote, simply because all of the facts we know do not point to that direction.
3] It is possible that more than one person was involved, but if there was only two , not a gang , such as the high rip gang.
4] the knive could have been any sharp blade, shoemakers knive, butchers knive, even a scalpel, the obvious reason why, was to kill , and inflict severe mutalation.
5] The victims were roughly assaulted, I Do not believe he practised foreplay, and any communication was through sheer agression.
Why?, To make somekind of statement to somebody.
There you are Sandra, now we both can come under attack.
Regards Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 523
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 2:04 pm: |
|
1. I have no firm suspect but lean toward Kaminski/Cohen (not Kosminski) or Druitt. Kaminski I base on the research of Martin Fido with respect to the MacNaughten Memoranda and Swanson Marginalia. Druitt is a candidate because of records left behind that suggest he was (posthumously) a prime police suspect and because the killings stopped after his death. I would not exclude other suspects, however.
2. Chances of the killer being female are remote. Serial killers are almost always male. These killings required strength to overpower the victims quickly. While not impossible, this tends to eliminate a woman.
3. It is possible the killer had an accomplice/lookout, although I tend to doubt it since the presence of an accomplice would actually increase the chances of at least one of them being caught or identified. If you mean to ask whether the killings might have been performed by different killers, I would say that is a possibility. "Copycat" murders are not uncommon.
4. I don't think we can say a lot more than that the murders were performed with a sharp knife or knives.
5. The victims were tricked into thinking the killer was a customer or "john." Once in a private or semi-private, somewhat secluded location ostensibly for sex the killer surprised and overpowered the victim possibly strangling her with one hand while cutting her throat and windpipe with a knife in the other hand. This would ensure a quick and silent death. Mutilations (except for Stride who was not mutilated) were carried out post-mortem.
Andy S.
|
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 12
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Hello Sandra
1. I am leaning towards George Hutchison (British) as my suspect. His long wait in the rain on the night Mary Jane Kelly was murdered sounds too plausable. My second thoughts lie with the feeling that JRT may also have been a railway policeman simply because he just seemed to disappear into thin air and no-one caught sight of him. The Ripper definately knew Whitechapel extremely well.
2. I don't think the Ripper was female. The depravity of the killings does not lean towards a female killer.
3. I don't think there were multiple Jacks or a gang. Someone would ultimately feel guilty and start talking about the crimes.
4. The weapon used was some kind of knife. it's possible The killer may also have used their hands for strangulation.
5. I believe Jack killed six victims- Martha Tabram to Mary Jane Kelly at the height of the killing spree. It could however, have been as many as 12 between 1888 and 1891. Why did he kill? Who knows? All those with a keen interest in the crimes have been trying to answer that question for the past 116 years!
Busy Beaver |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2474
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Hey, is this the "Ripper Notes" questionnaire? Come on, Dan. Own up.
Robert |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 9:11 pm: |
|
Hey Everybody,
1) Who Jack was and why? Not sure, maybe, like Andrew said, someone affiliated with one of those Jewish families. Why...Basically because of the witness Joseph Levy. I think he might have recognized the man with Eddowes and thats why his behavior was so bizarre at the inquest.
2)Female? No Why? thats kind of obvious.
3)Not one, but many? No, I dont think so. There is no evidence of that. Plus, as Busy Beaver pointed out....someone would have ran their mouth.
4) Weapon? Knife and hands for strangulations
5) how did he kill? I will agree with Andrew again and say that he used his charm and talked sweet to them so they would think he was just out for some fun....when they led him to their spot....WHAMMO! He was on them so quick..they didnt have time to react to what was happening.
they couldnt scream because he already had them in the "death grip". He may have cut the throat from the back.....then again he may have put them down on the ground and cut the throat.
Why? He was nuts.
Paul
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 6:25 am: |
|
Robert
No but I was just thinking Ah s**t!!!!!!!!!!
Please still fill in my questionnaire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jennifer
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Hi Sandra,
My preferd suspect is Dr. Tumblety. I feel before I go on I should explain my criteria for picking a suspect.
A. He must have been in London at the time of the murders. I know this sounds sort of obvious but you would be suprised how many suspects who are put forth that were not even in the country at the time of the murders. We know that Dr.T was in London at the time of the killings.
B. Something must have happend to the ripper in order for him to stop killing. I dont believe the ripper would just stop killing. there is only three reasons the ripper stops.
1. He dies
2. He is locked up in prison or an asylum.
3. He moves away and none of his other murders are connected to his previous murders.
We know Tumblety fled the country soon after the Kelly murder.
3. I believe the ripper would of had a criminal record before or after the ripper murders. I dont believe he could go his entire life without becoming known to the police. Tumblety was arrested many times before and after the ripper murders.
4. I prefer suspects that were suspected by the police at the time of the murders or shortly after the murders. We know Dr.T was a suspect at the time of the murders. He was pursued by the police to Newyork after he had fled England.
I have left out my own theories and speculations on Tumblety because I do not wish to mislead you. The casebook has alot information on him.
I agree with everyone else. I do not believe the ripper was a woman. I think the idea that the ripper was a woman was suggested after the testimony of Caroline Maxwell and others who claimed to see Kelly after the alleged time of death. It was suggested that the ripper changed into Kelly,s cloths after she killed Kelly because her own cloths were to bloody. The people who claimed to see Kelly actually saw the ripper making her escape. Of course this theory doese not hold much water because Maxwell claimed to have talked to Kelly. I should point out that Maxwell was considerd a woman of good charactor. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle suggested that the ripper could have been a man dressed as a midwife. The Jill the ripper story I am not familiar with but you can read about the theory at the casebook suspect page.
I dont believe there were two people involved in the killings. The most popular theory that suggest there were more then one person involved in the killings is the royal conspiracy but there have been others. The police did offer a pardon to anyone with information concerning Mary Kelly's murder. They may have thought that someone knew who the ripper was. I do not think it is impossible that Dr.T had an accomplice. He had been implicated in conspiracies before the ripper murders and he was often in the company of young men.
I have to agree with the sharp knife theory. I believe that a garrot could have been used but this is pure speculation and I have no medical evidence to support this.
I feel the ripper strangled his victims and cut there throat. What made it so easy for him is that they took him to the place that they knew interuption was less likely. The prostitutes may have even known when the police were due to come around. The unfortunates made a habbit of avoiding the police and this worked to the rippers advantage.
I think the ripper killed 5 woman from Nicholes to Kelly. I can not rule Tabram out with any great confidence and I am not sure if Stride was a ripper victim. Most of the detectives working the case that put forth an oppinion that I have read with the exception of Dew and Reed believed the ripper killed only five women. Dew believed Emma Smith through Mary Kelly. Reed I heard in a documentory believed that some of the killings after Kelly were possible ripper victims.
I agree with Busy Beaver. Who knows why the ripper killed. I guess since I have put forth a suspect I should have a motive. One possible motive for Tumblety is based on evidence that I do not believe has bee comfirmed so I wont mention the motive but I believe that sexual confusion leading to sexual frustration and impotence led to a total hattred of woman. I feel he chose prostitutes because they were easy prey.
All the best,CB |
Ian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 11:27 pm: |
|
1 My opinion is the most likely was probably Kaminski although there are many possibilities I wouldn't rule out.
2 No. Million to one chance the killer was a woman.
3 I don't think he was "many". It is possible he had an acomplice particularly if you believe the royal / masonic theories. I think it was probably one man but two at the most.
4 & 5 are reasonably well documented. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
