|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 33
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 3:30 pm: | 
|
Thinking about some recent threads about theories around the number 39; conspiracies; famous names etc, made me focus on two ways of looking at the Ripper case from a sort of "strategic" level.
I would be interested in hearing from others which of these two opposing views they take and why?
First there is the "simple" view.
A series of horrific murders wewre carried out in 1888 and perhaps 1889 in the East End. We know from research that has been done by reputable posters here such as AP Wolf, that while murder was not common in that area at that time, it was not rare either.
Thus the simple view would be that a single serial killer, working alone called a number of women (all prostitutes or of a similar class) although some murders by other hands may have mistakenly been taken into the "canon" (Stride, MJK, Tabram, McKenzie, Coles for instance) while early attacks may have been overlooked.
Basically, under the "simple" heading, I see the killings as being random - with no connection between killer and victim until the final fatal moments.
In this view there is little extraneous to find. the murdere may have been local (Kosminski, Chapman) or come in from outside (Tumblety, Druitt for example).
In examining the crimes we should be looking for simple clues and evidence. It is unlikely, in this scenario, that complex patterns, jokes, etc were involved, though one cannot rule out a sick sense of humour on the part of the murderer.
By way of contrast, the "complex" view. assumes that letters, graffiti, and all sorts of other things can be found that link the murders to some wider scheme - blackmail; revenge; cover-up, free-masons, conspiracies; black magic rituals etc.
Into this category fall the major conspiracy theories which involve some outside event (royal or masonic scandal) as a precursor and "cause" of the Whitechapel murders. Without the first event the murders would not have been needed (as it were).
I would also include here "political" scaenrios such as that involving Fenians in some way. one could argue that any theory originating in or depending on remarks by people like Matthews, Munro, Abberline etc that the murders had some high social involvement, or were a political "hot potato" come into this category. So too does anything involving a political cover-up (ie the authorities knew the culprit but didn't let on) so Cutbush would be on this list.
I think also that I would include anything but random killings here - so Dr Stanley; Barnett trying to scare MJK off the game; or anything that sees Mary Kelly as always the ultimate victim known to her killer (even if not Barnett).
I know that one could find scenarios that have some sort of mixture of both - a simple view that includes complex elements, or a complex case that arose out of something simple maybe. but I hope those who read this post will latch on to the point I am trying to make.
It seems to me that many of the discussions on Casebook get lost because the debate mixes the two approaches, whereas discerning and understanding that the two are broadly incompatible helps to clarify the analysis. In an hypothosis coming from the "simple" angle, the graffito in Wentworth Dwellings is probably of no consequence. To a supporter of a "complex" solution, the graffito may be a major clue.
I'd value the views of others, like to know where you stand, and the reasons why.
Phil
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1416
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
As you responded to my thread , i will to yours.
It is a intresting thread, full of debate.
My first point murder by numbers is not uncommon, serial killers often find statistic killings relevant to this in their own mind, a pattern could be certain types of people , certain types of dress, certain hair colouring, certain Zodiac signs, even black magic rituals.
So to suggest 'Jack' was any different does not need to be so.
Although I have started a thread on Barnett, I also have opinions on a conspiracy, that envolves around Mjk, she at least to my way of thinking was the last murder in the series, and that was because of a reason.
I happen to believe Mrs Cox saw kelly with two men, both which she reported to the police but only one description was released, and both men were in contrast with each other.
I feel the graffiti was linked to the Double event, the coincedence that eddowes part apron was found beneath it almost is certainly the case for.
I love to speculate, but i try to do it with foundation.
Regards Richard. |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Phil,
The more I read and study, the more I am convinced of the "simple view". We have tried in the last 100+ years to make so many of the "complex" theories work, and they haven't yet.
I believe in keeping it simple and trying to look at even the smallest things, that may seem unimportant at the time, but may truly shed some light on this case. I think we have clouded the water and made it very difficult to see clearly.
We have turned JtR into a superhero from hell. His story has been embellished so much over the years that no one man could possibly fill his shoes, or be the "type" of killer we want him to be. He has become a myth,and in some ways I feel we are chasing shadows.
He is probably some unknown, who looking at all that has been written about him, would probably shake his head and say..."I did all that? I only thought I had killed me a few whores."
Just my humble opinion, 
Carolyn |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 35
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Carolyn, Richard, thanks for your prompt responses.
I realised having posted my opening statement (as it were) that I had not indicated where I stand.
I think on balance, and after thinking about the case for around 30 years, that I have come to think of the case as falling broadly into the "simple" category. this is partly for the reasons you give Carolyn, and partly because it seems to fit with the milieu and the time - was the first major urban serial killer of the post industrial age something unusual and contrived? On the whole, I think not. It is much more likely to be a product of the alienation, degradation and culture of the Victorian urban revolution. After all the toffs and doctors and royals, diarists and celebrities have been dismissed, I am left with someone like Kosminski (maybe a druitt type) who seems to fit the bill and the evidence we have.
But intellectually, I share Richard's taste for speculation, puzzles and enigmas, and I am not quite ready yet to throw out a political dimension (the Fenians for example). there's still fun in that, though I argue strongly for standards to be maintained in the process.
Phil |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 628
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
In trying to determine whether simple or complex is more credible, one should look at what is feasable.
It appears that it is difficult enough for the average SK to find a victim, lure her to where he can safely kill her and get away.
Imagine if he also was requiring himself to do it on a certain day (if he failed the pattern would be broken) or at a certain hour or if she had to have red hair, or if he had to research first to see when her birthday was, or if he had to kill a certain individual because she had once babysat the Prince of Wales. Maybe he would have to find someone of a certain age.
I only wish SKs operated that way. There would be far fewer killings. |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
Phil,
Not fair, you wanted what we believed, not what was fun! Ha!
Cheers,
Carolyn  |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 29
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 7:51 pm: |
|
For what it is worth, I also tend to believe the series of killings should be classified as simple. Much for the same reasons that you fine people state. However, one should not underestimate the possible idiosyncracies of the killer coming into play.
For example, even if it all started out "simple", the very attention and press would do something to the killer. An urge to outo himself, or possibly to make a statement. The situation would feed the ego, even if only subconciously.
An example would be the letters to the press. I'm sure most was fake. But maybe these letters made the real killer actually write one or more letters himself? After all, someone else (unless the JTR letter is believed to be genuine) MADE him Jack the Ripper. Maybe he fed on that?
Another possible scenario would be the apron and the grafitti. It is "clever" (but has no wider meaning) to put the apron below the grafitti to "authenticate" it. In my opinion it probably did not happen that way. It was all more or less happening on the fly, no deep thought behind it. The apron was discarded "randomly" as the killer stopped to write the grafitti, the writing being preplanned or not. Thus it "had" to be tossed at the spot, even if no thought was given to it at the moment. Maybe the writing was also catering for the ego the press was partly creating?
I believe in a "simple" scenario. But the "Ripperscare" and the newspapers must have complicated matters in an unprecedented manner. It is reasonable to believe the man must have spent more time thinking his (disturbing) thoughts than actually killing!
In his own twisted mind, JTR probably eventually saw himself as a demigod.
While in fact there was no wider significance than a killer giving in to his immediate and base desires.
(Message edited by helge on May 29, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 11:46 pm: |
|
Helge,
Your post made me think of something I had not put together before now...You stated that the attention from the press etc... Then you state "In his own twisted mind, JTR probably saw himself as a demigod" that may be closer to the truth than what I saw him as saying.
What I thought about was the escalation of the killings. The killings got worse with each one (except Stride), was JTR spurred on to "better" himself each time because of the attention and the press? Did the attention he got make him crave more and more? Like you said turning himself into a demigod in his mind. Could that be part of the reason that he went so far?
Just some random thoughts,
Carolyn
|
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 37
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 1:55 am: |
|
But Helge and Carolyn,
If Kosminski or someone like him was the Ripper, how much of the press coverage would he have been aware of?
A semi or illiterate immigrant, especially one with mental problems, need have had little awareness of the sensation caused. he might have been aware of the obvious ramifications - increased police patrols, fear etc. But a specific and "measured" response to the press would - to my way of thinking - almost certainly indicate a more educated Jack.
As to the increasing "escalation" of the murders, do we need a demi-god explanation? I would not and cannot reject it - it is a possibility - but surely the simple explanation might be that Jack just gained in confidence progressively as his "spree" continued. I agree that he also probably spent much time thinking about what he had done and what he might do "next time".
On the graffito - is anyone sure it would have even been visible to a casual passer-by from the street? The police might have seen it, of course, as they shone their lanterns on the apron-half. But if it was relatively invisible, then connection between the writing and the cloth is non-existent.
Just trying to show that there are solutions to these issues which are "simple" rather than "complex".
Phil |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 3:15 am: |
|
Phil,
We don't need a demigod explanation, it just led me to thinking about the escalation of the killings. He would not have to read to be aware of what the word was on the street, and I feel a lot of that "word" would have come from the press. People would be talking about it, fear yes, would be part of it, but I also think they would be discussing "all the latest" on the killings.
Yes, they say practice makes perfect, and you are probably right about the progression of the murders. But JTR hearing about and trying to out do himself, is an interesting idea. I still think it falls under "simple" rather than "complex".
Carolyn |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 30
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:00 am: |
|
Phil and Carolyn, I see your points. That is why I said "an example" and "another possible scenario". The grafitti could have been there for days possibly. And possibly Jack could not read.
But all that is conjecture. We simply do not know. All I'm saying is that a "simple" scenario would perhaps still incorporate more complex behaviour.
Certainly it is not a given fact that Jack felt like a demigod. But what makes a serial killer tick in the first place? Maybe he was nothing more than a miserable bastard simply out to have a bit of (his idea of) fun?
But even simple people have depths. In real life no one are cardboard characters from bad novels.
What I'm trying to say is that the general tension in Whitechapel, indeed the whole of London that autumn, must have impacted somewhat on the killers behaviour. He was, literate or not, not living in a vacuum. Carolyn is correct in stating that he would probably have heard "word" through people talking, even if he never ever opened a newspaper.
Every single prostitute in Whitechapel had heard of Jack. Surely most of them did not read newspapers?
Another possibility is that the escalation was partly (I say partly) because the press sometimes misreported the killings as more severe than they were. Maybe he had to follow up on his "reputation"?
After all, we all know there exist copycat killers from time to time, maybe even in the JtR case. If copycats are influenced by newspapers\words on the street\other media, why should not the "original" killer be influenced?
So we may all be correct. Jack became more confident, he learned his "trade" better, he tried to emulate the "Jack" created by newspapers and general imagination, and he might have considered himself more and more like a demigod, untouchable, perhaps even capable of playing "funny little games" The psychology of a SK is probably always complex!
All speculation. But seriously, surely Jack must have reflected in some ways about his deeds? And surely the milieu in which he was living must have rubbed somewhat off on him? Did he feel pride for his notoriety? Impossible to know. Did he care about his notoriety? Its hard to imagine he was utterly indifferent!
Anyway, we are probably more in agreement than it seems. As I said, I would also consider the killings "simple" rather than "complex".
Richard, I also think the grafitti are bound to be connected to the double event.
Actually, in my mind the apron\grafitti connection are still "simple". Jack threw away the apron AS he decided to do the writing. No clever agenda. Just "coincidence". It is actually more against the odds that he threw away the apron just as it happened under an existing grafitti.
I know the grafitti might possibly be a red herring, but my version of "simplicity" is that actually Jack DID write it. And certainly the police at the time thought he might have. If there were such a plethora of grafitti around, would they not have considered this to be pure coincidence?
Anyway, even if Jack did write letters, or grafitti, or take souvernirs for that matter, my point is that it might have a complex meaning in his mind, but basically the entire scenario is "simple"!
Diana, you are absolutely correct IMO that if Jack needed a time-schedule or whatever, he simply could not have pulled it off. Jacky was a hunter after his prey. The situation commanded his behaviour, not the other way around.
Phil, I wholeheartedly agree on your basic premise that the killings were random.
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on May 30, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 90
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
Phil,
I too take the opinion that the Ripper murders were of the simplistic kind,by a member, and upon members of the public of the Whitechapel district.
If,as you seem to constantly demand,evidence be supplied that will prove statements submitted here to be factual,then a solution can never be reached.Evidence against individuals is practically non existant,but it shouldn't stop any one from suggesting solutions based on common sense and experience.
Here is an example.You say there is no evidence that victims knew each other or their killer,and from evidence to hand 117 years later ,that appears a correct statement.But is the statement true.
All the victims lived or lodged in a small compact area,shared communal facilities such as streets,shops,public houses etc,and lived much the same lifestyle as each other.Do you or
anyone seriously believe their paths would not have crossed repeatedly,enough at least to form aquaintance value.No,there is no evidence that such happened,no diaries or other documental evidence,but common sense and experiance might suggest otherwise.
In 117 years time there will probably be no evidence that I and members of my immediate
district know each other,but the truth is that we do.
So I see no harm in people expressing opinions that have no evidence as proof.I believe Mary Kelly never left her room after returning at midnight.I cannot prove it,but the only information that she did is not substanciated,and I do know that perpetrators will and do lie. |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 39
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
Helge:
You wrote: "...I also think the grafitti are bound to be connected to the double event. "
On what basis do you say "bound to be"? That is very categoric and goes beyond any evidence or logic I know of.
Harry - when I call for "evidence" I am thinking about more than provable facts. I am arguing for sdtandards of logic and in handling "evidence". Even hearsay evidence can have its place, if it is based on a principled approach. What I counter is the argument based on plucking diverse bits and pieces without any thought for the implications for the use of other such evidence. the clue that this process is going on is that the "evidence" is being used to support a pre-determined conclusion, NOT a solution that arises from the logic of the evidence. Special pleading gets no marks from me.
If a "trial" based on legal approaches can be successfully carried out on Richard III (400 years before Jtr and with much less evidence surviving) i see no reason why similar principles cannot be applied to JtR.
But this thread was not intended to be about that, its aim was to discuss two diverse perspectives on the case.
Phil
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 31
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
Harry, interesting thoughts.
It might very well be possible that some links existed between some of the victims, and even between them and the killer. Maybe they frequented the same pubs (as an example) But even if they knew eachother casually (or even not so casually), at least my opinion is that Jacky was trawling the streets for victims and seized the opportunities that presented themselves. That he frequented a limited part of Whitechapel might appear to open up some coincidental possibilities, but as I see it they are just that, coincidental (if they exist at all)
Any connections between the people involved would be random. That is my opinion, and cannot be substantiated by fact, but rely solely on probability as I interpret it, and my common sense and experience.
Thus I seem to agree with Phil, unless a connection can be proved, it should be disregarded. Simply because the simplest solution should be sought (Occams Razor)
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 32
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Phil, if you read on in my previous post I make an analysis (or an attemp) of the apron\grafitti case based solely on my OPINION that the two are related, and statistically more probable to be connected. We could discuss this more, if you like, but it was not the main theme of this thread anyway.
I STILL think the grafitti is linked to the killings. But I don't KNOW.
But secondguessing police at the time is not something I feel comfortable with, considering there actually are NO (as in zero) evidence either way!
My point is that unless we CAN come up with evidence, the most prudent way is NOT to think the people involved at the time (and knew more than we ever will about the details of the case) were stupid.
Just to clarify, I think the "simplest" solution is actually that there was a connection. Not that the apron was carried to the site by a stray dog, etc. Nor that it just happened to be dropped by this particular grafitti by chance. But other people may have another viewpoint on "simplicity" here. And I'm cool with that.
However, can anyone prove me wrong ;)
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on May 30, 2005)
(Message edited by helge on May 30, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 41
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
The fact that the graffito has no clear message - and no one has yet come up with one that a majority agrees with - is in my opinion a reason for us to assume that the two are NOT connected. Not proof, of course, but a reasonable assumption.
Phil |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 396
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Put me down for simplicity every time.
As to the escalations, I think that the killer was obsessed with the female body, the insides of the body, and his pre-murder fantasies incorporated what he then knew about it. As he gained experience killing and actually being exposed to the insides of bodies he needed more and more exploration to satisfy him.
I just don't know about the idea that the victims knew each other. We're told that there were thousands of prostitutes in Whitechapel at the time.It was a crowded place. Ask anyone who lives in a big city if they know many of the people in their building let alone who live on the next block.
Mags
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 33
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Phil, the fact that this particular grafitto has no obvious clear message could just as easily be because it was written by someone high from a kill, not quite thinking straight. Or even to deliberately confound.
I still maintain that people at the time (police) would be far better equipped to interpret it than we are today.
They never could say either way (although clearly they initially saw a possible connection) and we may probably never know for sure. I think that is a reasonable assumption, although I also respect your point of view.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 545
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
The police would, quite properly, not rule anything out. In 1888, their concern was compounded by the possible practical racial implications of the writing on the wall - i.e. riots.
But Knight; numerous posters here, and other authors have signally failed to draw any concensus from the words. Occam's razor would argue that we therefore separate the two things (cloth and writing) until a link - other than a locational one - can be established.
The simple explanation - self-contained and logical - is that the cloth was thrown into a darkened doorway when its temporary use as a wash-cloth was done. User never saw or knew about writing. All explained, no loose ends. QED.
So this fits quite nicely with the "simple" approach to the case. No need to complicate it.
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 34
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Just to return to Phil's initial premise, simple versus complex. I am all for simple, but lets not make it too simple!
Clearly in most SK cases there can be found very complex behaviour (Zodiak, Son of Sam, Berkowitz, as prime examples from the top of my head. Zodiak even (in the words of John Douglas) "wrote letters to manipulate, dominate and control the larger audience he knew he could reach" (Probably somewhat paraphrased, as I quote from memory)
The strategic picture should be considered simple IMO, but let us not toss out complex tactical scenarios. They are possible after all.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 35
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:50 pm: |
|
My last post crossed yours, Phil. Yes your scenario is possible. I'm not arguing that.
I would not be willing to put ALL of my money on it, though.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 36
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Oh, and just one more thing.. I fail to see why the failure of actually agreeing on the meaning of the grafitto should rule against there being any connection to the apron.
Surely there are no written exams to pass before becoming a serial killer? (I say that jokingly, with a glint in me eyes 
In fact the connection IS the location.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 549
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 1:09 am: |
|
But for location - Helge - there are simpler and perfectly logical explanations.
To return to the main thrust of the thread, you also wrote:
... I am all for simple, but lets not make it too simple!
Why not, if that provides the answers?
I think your posts demonstrate one of the things that my create of the thread was seeking to bring out. That is, that while quite simple answers to most things in the JtR case exist, there is something in us that WANTS the case to be more significant, have more angles, more puzzles, more depth more links to other things.
We would actually, many of us (and I do include myself here) if it were ever proved that the case revolved around an insignificant local "John Doe" who went out some nights and killed women for his own insane, perverse reasons and grew more frenzied with each attack until he was put away for his madness, unrecognised as the killer. he may not even have killed all the women usually ascribed to him.
Yet, for all the comparisons with other "SKs" as you call them, that routine lone nut scenario works and leaves no loose ends. It was what Anderson - who was in a position to know - believed, and would be largely true of all Macnaghten's three suspects.
Simple versus complex - where do you stand folks?
phil
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 37
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 3:56 am: |
|
Phil. Ok, I get it, simple is only what you make it to be. You are incapable of accepting other opinions. I have allready conceded that your scenario is possible, but I find it rather tedious to have to defend my own position ad infinitum.
A more simple solution would be to agree that we disagree.
I still have my opinion, and if anyone disagrees, that is ok with me. But I would like to hear, just out of curiosity, what simpler (in the plural) scenarios you see for the apron\grafitto. You have allready mentioned the apron being tossed into the doorway by chance. What other scenarios seem probable? Would you even consider the possibility that the grafitto are linked to the murders, or have you made up your mind based on your interpretation of simplicity?
Also, I think it is a misunderstanding of the principle of Occam's razor to think that invariably the SIMPLEST solution is the correct one. Look it up. Its not a magic formula that gives you any answers!
That said, your scenario is fully possible, and my second choice if I had to have one. Can I prove that my position is correct? NO. Can you? NO (unless you try to convince everyone that simplest is ALWAYS correct)
This is what I mean by not making it too simple. You easily miss other possibilities. When I say "lets not make it too simple", you say "Why not, if that provides the answers?" Answers? What answers? It provides a simplistic theory, no answers!
(However, I grant you that your theory on the grafitto is pretty likely.. Its certainly not a theory I can discard altogether)
You discard comparisons with other serial killers as completely irrelevant. Why? Because your scenario works without it. No further comment.
Also, in your first posting you say "though one cannot rule out a sick sense of humour on the part of the murderer". Where do you suppose this humour is displayed? Actually I utterly agree with you on this one. One cannot rule out such a possibility.
I go for simple, but not TOO simple. And I hope we leave it at that.
All that said, I really appreciate your efforts, Phil, to bring the case into the realms of simplicity, rather than outrageous complex and unlikely scenarios!
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on May 31, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 550
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 4:16 am: |
|
Helge - I am not saying you are wrong and I am right, or anything like it. the purpose of the thread was in part, to draw a CONTRAST.
The truth is that the water is probably muddy, but before assessing the degree of "muddiness" isn't there value in looking at the two extremes?
That, in this thread, is what I am seeking to do. Hence my emphasis on stripping complexity away to explore the "simple" approach. I hope someone might argue the opposite extreme - that the case MUST be complicated.
Thanks for your comments,
Phil |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 91
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 5:47 am: |
|
It is certainly going to complicate matters,if as seems from comments above,opinion and belief is to be determined by the inclusion of fact.If we have fact,there is little need for the first two,but the lack of factual evidence,in the Ripper crimes,is the bugbear.We have very little.
The localities have changed,witnesses are dead,information has been lost.It is a lot more complex situation today than it was in 1888.
However,if by simplistic we mean the most simple possible solution,it would require that we reduce the elements of the case into its simplest terms and find a simple solution to each.
For example we might question how the killer came to be in Kelly's room,but a simple answer would depend on our opinion of whether the killer was taken there,or arrived alone,and what is the simplist answer to that?. Does it matter how he came to be in the room?.It would help if we knew.
So Phil,it can be as complex or as simple as you want it to be.It will be complex if you insist on factual evidence,but simple you are guided by opinion and belief. |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 38
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
Phil, ah, then I am not the right person to take the opposite extreme ;)
But I finally think I realize your strategy. And it is a valid one.
Harry, you also have valid points. It is devilishly hard to determine what is more likely choosing between different scenarios where there are no facts to determine the thruth.
Phil and my own discussion on the apron should be a perfect example!
Maybe we should indeed strip the case from all complex theories, and instead of looking for absolute thruths based on opinion, which is impossible, look for probabilities?
I agree that in most cases the most simple solution is the most probable one. Although we may not always agree on which solution that is, we may try to rank possible scenarios based on simplicity.
An example, the Maybrick diary in my opinion would rank very low (improbable) on such a list, simply because in order to believe it is true, one must accept a LOT of complexity in the scenario.
The grafitto, still in my opinion, have two scenarios that seem simple, thus likely. a) the killer dropped the apron and actually wrote the grafitto. b) the killer dropped the apron by the grafitto by chance. Phil would reverse the order of these scenarios, but that is no big deal for me, as long as we agree both scenarios can be considered "simple enough". (actually I agree Phil's scenario is the "simplest")
Still using this example, a scenario having to rely on a stray dog or a gust of wind bringing the apron to its final resting place seems complex, thus unlikely.
Another example, provided by Harry, how did the killer come to be in Mary's room? Here I think the simplest solution is that he was brought by Mary as a customer. It is possible, but much more complex, and thus more unlikely, that Jack stalked Mary for some time, knew or learned her habits, and decided to break in by night. Included in such a complex scenario would be that the killer stole the key, etc.
Is this something along the lines you are thinking, Phil?
If it is, I think it is a great tool to get an oversight on the case, and make a blueprint of "likely" and "unlikely" scenarios.
It would also be valid to hear any argument as to why the case should be complex, even if we "simplistics" does not agree.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Gentlemen,
I am going to stick my neck out here and interject into this debate...
This is the very thing I am talking about in my idea of keeping it simple. These ideas are great and they all fall under what I view as speculation. Do they really get us any closer to understanding JtR? Or who he might be?
Phil wrote earlier about the "muddy water", I called it the cloudy water, same thing. One cannot see clearly because one gets so hung up on every little detail the larger picture is lost, and something may slip by. One example to me is the Maybrick Diary Thread, why go on for pages after pages to determine if it is an old hoax or a new hoax, what does it matter? It is a hoax, and can be of no use, so let the damn thing go.
IF JtR wrote the graffito, left the apron etc, fine, what does it mean what do we learn. If he didn't fine. If JtR was in MJK's room fine, does it really matter how he got there, or is it more important to look at what he did, once he got there...Does it really matter what color Mary's dress was. or is it more important that it was folded neatly by the bed? My point being do all these details really change the outcome? Do they make a difference in the outcome? It all falls under speculation and my opinion then becomes just as valid as your opinion, but the bottom line is that is all they are, just opinions.
Please don't get me wrong, debate is fun, but I feel it needs to be kept in the proper perspective when viewing this case and keeping the facts straight.
Cheers,
Carolyn 
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Carolyn,
*Must resist the urge to flirt...must resist....Scott will spank me hard.....must resist...*
Whilst I agree with most of you post Im afraid Im going to have to disagree...yes I lied about the first part of this paragraph !!
Details are important. The graffito, if written by the killer, may shed light on his state of mind. The same goes for the colour of Marys dress and the folding of clothes in her room (a sign of tidiness which incidently, I feel is present at the scene of Chapmans murder). All possible indicators to Jacks mind set.
I do agree with your points regarding the diary (old or modern hoax). However, some are intrigued with such issues.
Im not.
Cheers,
Monty
BTW you're looking lovely today, have you had your hair done...or lost weight perhaps??
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 397
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
This idea of simplicity also applies to the choice of victims and the locations of the murders.
Why prostitutes? Because they are the easiest women to kill;they approach and go off with strange men and the are unlikely to be missed right away because of the nature of their lifestyles.
Why those locations? Because those are the places the victims led him to, including Mary's room.
Why those dates? those were the times when the killer could both get away and was lucky enough to find a good combination of prey/location.
Another point we must address is the specific organs taken and the nature of the mutilations. So much ink has been spilled over what the mutilations may tell us about the skill level of the killer. We hear over and over about how difficult it is to find and remove a kidney. That presupposes that the killer was looking for a kidney specifically.
What if he just grabbed the first thing he touched?
Mags
|
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
Monty,
You are such a handsome man, so strong, so...
I think you were blinded by my loveliness and didn't see the point that I was trying to make, I am not saying details are not important, but to keep them in proper perspective when the details fall into the realm of speculation.
Yes, IF the graffito was written by JtR it would give us a clue to his mind set. Not sure about the color of Mary's dress, but the fact it was folded neatly could hold a clue.
All I am saying is keeping it simple, I feel is the best way maybe to reach for the truth. We know so little about this case so why complicate it beyond belief. It can't be that hard...
Love and kisses, 
Carolyn
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 39
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Carolyn, what I find interesting is the possibility to classify different scenarios as probable and less probable. Needless to say such scenarios must stick to the facts known.
But I don't think I get why you feel it is unimportant if Jack wrote the grafitto etc. Why not then say that nothing matters; someone killed prostitutes in 1888, and that is all we need to know!
Hahah.. I know you did not quite mean that, but how can we tell which details are important or not? (give me a hug..come on)
Maybe a simple\complex approach may turn up something new. Maybe not. At least it might structure our thoughts a bit.
Monty, I agree. (what's this thing you have going with Carolyn?? And would you be jealous if she gave in and hugged me?) The details are important. Obviously! Any theory must incorporate all known details. And what do we have without these details?
From all the known details in the case both complex and simple scenarios can be construed. Yes, I'm stating the obvious here (I really need a hug!)
What I have been trying to say is that even complex details would probably be part of a simple scenario, as seen from a strategic point of wiew.
Maria, your points are superb in illustrating exactly what I am talking about.. (still huggable..anyone?)
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 401
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
OK, Helge, don't pout. Here's a hug from me, also a pat on the head. You should be all right now for what I have said. 
Mags
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 40
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Thanks Mags! Blush.
You would say anything but your prayers..
Now I'm
and
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Helge,
I am not saying it is not important, I'm just saying it is speculation at this point. I am not saying that "nothing matters; someone killed prostitutes in 1888, and that is all we need to know" but isn't that all we basically do know?
I guess I have not made myself clear, I am not saying these things are not important, I was using them as an example. We do know that the clothes were folded, we do not know what color the clothes were. Does it really need to be debated what color her dress was? The graffito and apron were found on the night of the murder and were felt to have been written by JtR, what does it really mean? If we can't agree it was written by JtR, does it matter what it meant in regards to the case. I was taking everything down to the basic detail. I personally agree with Monty IF it was written by JtR it gives us insite into his state of mind.etc. I was just playing devil's advocate,and being very simplistic.
I was not passing a judgement and saying what was important and what was not important. Yes, all information is important, I just feel maybe we over look some things by complicating others.
The ole "can't see the forest for the trees", comes to mind.
And yes, you can have a great big hug! 
Cheers,
Carolyn
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 41
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Thanks Carolyn! Two hugs in one day! Im really happy.
I knew you did not think details were unimportant. I was just fishing for that hug!
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1512
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Hi all
The beauty of the Ripper case, or else its curse, as I indicated in my editorial in the present issue of Ripperologist, is that the case can be whatever you want, simple or complex, just as your chosen suspect can be a working man or a toff. Both scenarios are possibly viable within the framework of the evidence that we have, since that is where the major problem lies, the dearth of any specific information that might identify the killer or tell us what his motives were. In some ways we are cursed with too much information in terms of witness sightings, available police reports, and police and doctors' opinions, "Ripper" letters, and other ephemera, added to by the opinions of later Ripperologists. It all becomes very confusing. But the point is that what we really lack is any specific information on the man himself, the killer, except the likelihood that he probably was a nondescript local man and not somebody famous. We can deduce this from the witness statements, specifically Lawende's description of the man with Eddowes just before she was killed -- if he was the right man. But even this does not rule out the idea that the individual might have committed the murder for complex motives, that the story of the killer was not a simple one. We just don't know! 
All my best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 43
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Well said, Chris!
My personal basic premise is that if the killer was someone famous, this does not necessarily add complexity to the case. (I find that possibility highly unlikely, in case anyone wondered) Another example, whether or not Jacky wrote the grafitto, does not necessarily make the case more complex or not. Even if we found out what our boy had for breakfast, it does not add complexity to "the case".
It adds detail, but that is another thing.
What really adds complexity, is theories that have multiple if's. The more of them, and the more unlikely they may seem, the more complex and thus more unlikely the theory IMO.
Even a "nondescript" man, an average "Jack" of overcrowded Whitechapel streets, can have as complex motives, and have just as complex behaviour as a toff.
On the other hand, if we knew all the facts (and we never will unfortunately), the entire case would probably seem rather simple in perspective (This is how I interpret Phil's use of the word "strategic".
Thus perhaps we should (those of us that choose to) add a "simplicity" filter to our theorizing.
I'm not saying we should stop theorizing, but at least it might be possible to agree (that would be the day!!) that some theories are more likely than others, and that complexity reduces the probability that a theory could be right?
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1801
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 7:44 am: |
|
Hi All,
While I don't believe there are too many hard and fast rules about serial killers, eg regarding age limits, race, working or marital status, family, class, education, intelligence, trigger factors, victim choice, comfort zone, periods between attacks and what makes them stop and so on, I do think some theories are just too complex and too far removed from an acknowledgement that Jack was - after all is said and done - a serial killer, whose motives would have been at best ambiguous or self-justifying and imagined, at worst entirely absent or unguessable.
Simple, statistically, means for me that Jack would have been a man of the same race as his victims. He would have killed on nights when his absence from work/lodgings (family?) could be excused without problem.
And that's about it.
We know from identified serial killers that they don't tend to come to attention by their public behaviour, and they are rarely, if ever, declared mentally unfit to plead.
So why is the asylum-based Jew, identified as a violent man with homicidal tendencies, the simple option?
I've never really got this one. I understand this view in 1888, when 'normal' in everyday appearance and behaviour was not how anyone imagined Jack could turn out to be. But not today, surely?
Jack got away with it because he had no intention of ending up on trial for his life.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 02, 2005) |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 9:20 am: |
|
Hi Caz
I might suggest that the mad Polish Jew solution seems the "simple" answer because he was the local man who lived round the corner, who only had to step out of his door to commit the murder. If such a man was the murderer, the motivations for murder might also have been relatively simple if we admit to the types of traumas he might have experienced during Russian pogroms, as hypothesized in Robert House's recent article in Ripperologist.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 402
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
House's article is excellent reading and fits right in with this discussion as it focuses attention back to the simle (Kosminski) idea of the murderer.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if old Sir Melville was right all along?
Mags
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
Hi Mags
You probably mean old Sir Robert Anderson, don't you? 
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 565
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
I once read Anderson's memoirs (the published book) - I have never had time to explore the evolution of his words on the matter. But I recall coming away with the distinct impression that he was saying something definite without appearing to. I felt there were statements that, if followed up by someone who knew Victorian criminology, might open up.
As I recall, there was something particular about "if only we had had the powers of the French police" which was taken up later and indicated what he would have wished to do.
I have never, therefore, written off Anderson as a liar, or as arrogant (least of all since we learned that it was not he, but Sir Charles Warren, who believed that he could solve the crimes in a few hours given the time and inclination!!).
Macnaghten, who came along slightly later (and thus may not have been so directly influenced by experiences and recollections gained in the autumn of 1888), and knew Dr Anderson, appears to have had a more open mind - allowing Druitt and (for whatever reason) Ostrog to enter his list of suspects. But both Sir Melville and Munro ostensibly support Anderson on Kosminski.
That is a considerable weight of informed, period police opinion.
Thus Kosminski and Druitt remain the two key names and "types" (local and gentleman) in my own personal frame.
Phil |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
No offense, but how can anyone state that Sir Melville or Monro ostensibly supported Anderson on Kosminski?? Melville clearly knew all about it and tended to reject it; Monro was long gone to India at the time and it is abundantly clear from his few statements that he had formed a different theory. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the weakest point in the Kosminski theory is that (with the possible exception of Swanson) nearly ever other policeman from Constables to Commissioners who bothered to make a public statement seemed to have had no faith whatsoever in Anderson's claim to have identified the murderer. Some of the Inspectors even openly ridiculed it. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 568
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Mr Palmer - my apologies, (carried away with "M"s I wrote Munro when I meant Swanson (as in the marginalia).
Macnaghten clearly thought Kosminski worth citing as one of his three suspects more likely than Cutbuch to have been Jack. He could easily not have mentioned him at all.
I gave my reasons for saying that I do not dismiss Kosminski and don't take your view of Anderson. My words are there, read them or not.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on June 02, 2005) |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 691
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
I would tend to agree with you there. To add onto what you are saying, the reason Anderson's Polish Jew theory doesn't strike me at all as a supposed simple solution is that he wasn't merely content to claim he thought he knew who the murderer was but tried to blow it up into a "definitely ascertained fact" with a witness who "unhesitatingly identified" him. If these things were actually true we have to jump in hoops to explain why a good number of other officials outright rejected these statements. If someone were, in fact, unhesitatingly identified with the scenario that Anderson and Swanson together would have us believe, there'd be no way the other officials could have denied it at that point.
Of course, "a Mad Polish Jew" as a subset of "a madman of undetermined nationality and ethnicity" is a pretty simple and straightforward explanation, but restricting it solely to Polish Jews in general or Anderson's one's particular Jew (assuming it was one and not combination bits of stories he heard) is not simple at all.
Hi Phil,
The statement about the powers of the French police that Anderson made refers directly back to something someone told him during the course of an interview he gave in 1892. I suspect after that interview he either kept a clip for reference or acquired that phrase as a stock rationalization for the failure to capture the killer. (The interview in question was printed in Ripper Notes in July 2004. I felt it was an important enough piece that it should be up on the Casebook for everyone to see. You can find it in the Dissertations link in my signature.)
And I have to say that I'm surprised someone could read the things Anderson said without coming to the conclusion that he was arrogant and either a liar of simply strongly self-deluded. I understand that some people have and don't, but it's still pretty puzzling to me.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Phil--"My view" of Anderson, fortunately, has nothing to do with it. I've read several of his works and find him an interesting and complicated man. Rather, it's the view of Reid, Abberline, Macnaghten, Smith, Littlechild, and other contemporaries that historians of the case ought to be concerned with. That they weren't convinced by the Kosminksi theory is simply a fact, and a troubling one; anyone seeking to construct a palatable theory that involves Kosminski has to meet it head-on. RP |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Dan--Sorry, I posted before I saw your comments. Somewhere in a pile of papers I have a contemporary article about the French police system; I'll see if I can find it. The French detectives were evidently much more 'covert.' According to the article, at least, it wasn't unusual for their identities to be unknown even to other detectives. It seems that Anderson was particularly envious of the fact that the French didn't have to charge a suspect with a crime in a reasonable amount of time, but could hold them indefinitely and attempt to coerce a confession. Or maybe envious is too strong a word. I'm a little more sympathetic to Sir Robert than I used to be. Whatever one's view, he recognized the differences between the two systems. If I was to take Sir Robert's side for a moment, I think part of what he was saying is that in an open society one has to accept the fact that all criminals aren't going to be nabbed by the police. In a system that has a 'secret police' like 19th Century France or Russia, criminals are easier to detect, but the general population loses their civil liberties. It's a converstation we're still having in regards to Home Land Security, etc. Cheers, RP |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 569
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Well Mr Palmer, we'll simply have to disagree.
Don - thanks for the reference, I'll look it up. It's new to me. We obviously differ in our reading of Anderson's character.
Cordially,
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 44
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Any theory relying on "crazies" or "lunatics" in my mind is playing on 1888's misconceptions. However, some level of psychological problems may have been present, so the loony theories are not entirely outside statistical probabiliy. The FBI defines a disorganized serial killer as, quote:
"Disorganized types are often of low intelligence and commit their crimes impulsively. Whereas the organized killer will specifically set out to hunt a victim, the disorganized will murder someone whenever the opportunity arises, rarely bothering to dispose of the body but instead just leaving it at the same place in which they found the victim. They usually carry out "blitz" attacks, leaping out and attacking their victims without warning, and will typically perform whatever rituals they feel compelled to carry out (e.g. necrophilia, mutilation, etc.) once the victim is dead. They rarely bother to cover their tracks but may still evade capture for some time because of a level of cunning that compels them to keep on the move. They are often socially inadequate with few friends, and they may have a history of mental problems and be regarded by acquaintances as eccentric or even "a bit creepy". They have little insight into their crimes and may even block out the memories of the killings."
Unquote.
(most of you guys and gals posting here would know this, I add it for clarity only. I also know profiling is not an accurate science)
Many disorganized serial killers also start out as organized, and become disorganized when gradually their urges overcome their caution.
It seems, at least to me, that Jack was clearly a disorganized type, even though he may have had some organized characteristics, which is not uncommon. The "blitz" attacks and leaving the victim in situ, and (obviously) the mutilations seems to fit his MO.
Thus, the simplest solution is that we are looking for someone "dizorganized". In effect that would be someone that may (or may not have) killed in an organized fashion at first (cases that may never have been connected to the later killings because of different signature), but primarily someone that probably had a mental history (not necessarily being comitted) prior to the murders. Also, someone socially inadequate with few friends.
At the same time this person should be capable of not behaving too suspicious when on the prowl.
Not too much to go on, but there we are.
Was he a resident of the general area? Most likely. But there is another possibility. What if he was simply a visitor? Does anyone know if it was "fashionable" at the time for sailors for example to visit the Whitechapel district for..services?
Certainly not a new theory, I know! What I am after, would this scenario be considered complex or simple? Would it be likely?
We know the streets of Whitechapel were frequented by soldiers from local barracks, for example.
Was there any other area more likely to be frequented by either soldiers or sailors? In other words, would it be statistically probable that a sailor, or for that matter a soldier could be the culprit? Or would a local guy be most probable after all?
(talking statistically here, I know nothing can prove this either way)
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
