|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 801
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 11:12 am: |       |
Thanks for the info, Alan.
As far as I remember from some book (I can't recall which one at the moment, if it was Fido's or Sugden's), there was some sort of business on the ground floor, and the activity that facility had already begun when the murder took place. I admit I am a bit dusty on the details here, but I have quite a strong recollection of this. But I could of course be mistaken. I'll check up on it when I get the time.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 292
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 11:29 am: | |
On the ground floor Mrs Hardiman lived in the front room and the back room was used by Mrs Richardson for cooking and for prayer meetings. There were two businesses in the basement. In the front was a cat meat business run by Mrs Hardiman and her son. They were both asleep until six o'clock when they were woken up by the commotion in the passage. In the rear was a packing case business run by Mrs Richardson, her son and a man named John Tyler. Tyler did not arrive for work until eight o'clock that morning. So as far as I can tell there was nobody working in either business at the time of the murder. |
Kris Law
Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 34
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 12:58 pm: | |
I think the obvious answer to the blood on the clothing issue is that the Ripper wore a cloak. He would simply need to close it around himself and that would be that.
And as for being caught, this is my theory: It seems likely the mutilations were performed on the victem whilst she was laying on her back on the ground . . . most of the murder sites were known prostitute/client spots, so if someone were to happen apon them, perhaps he intended to pretend to copulate with the victim. It would be very dark, and the chances of whomeever found them being able to see everything is slim.
The person coming across them would say something to the effect of "Hey!" at which point the Ripper would run off. The shock would probably be enough to, at least, let him get away.
This, of course, is completel conjecture. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 1:17 pm: | |
If you wear very dark or black clothes, blood won't show on them |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 66
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 2:39 pm: | |
Alan,
Thanks for the info on the residents!
Or:
Bedankt voor de info over the bewoners!
Groeten,
Frank |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 67
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 5:33 pm: | |
Tjena Glenn!
”I disagree, Frank. If he was only focused on carrying out his mission, whatever the conditions or consequences, I'd say he wasn't thinking rationally at all.”
I think we’ve talked about this long enough now, because now I'm getting confused  . My main point was that Annie Chapman’s case didn’t definitely show that Jack was confused – at least, not with how I interpret ‘confused’. As it now turns out, you mean ‘thinking rationally’ by this word. Why didn’t you say so in the first place? Because then I would to some extent have agreed with you! By the way, I said he mainly focused on one thing, but with that I didn’t mean that he didn’t pay any attention to assessing his risks. This may be an insignificant difference to you, but by now you must know such things are a bigger difference to me. 
The basis for the timing might have been compulsiveness, impulsiveness, pure cold-bloodedness, arrogance, dare-devilry, mental illness or even planning (although this isn’t very likely). We simply don’t know and we can’t determine from what we know which it actually was, we can only make ‘educated’ guesses. In comparison with the other cases I think in this case Jack for whatever reason did a bad job of weighing up if the site and the time were worth committing a murder in and then only got away because he was lucky. But I think we shouldn’t isolate this case from the whole series. Mainly due to the timing Jack may have done a ‘bad job’ in Hanbury Street, certainly for the other outside murders he chose the cover of the night and finally he ended up in that tiny room up Miller’s Court.
”Well, why shouldn't he (be using the knowledge to avoid getting much blood on his clothes), if it was the method he knew and felt comfortable with? That would only be natural. I don't see the methodical or calculating issue about that detail.”
Well, I agree with you that it’s a very good possibility that he worked in one of the many slaughterhouses in the area and that he learnt his tricks there. But isn’t it possible that he might have gone to work there (only) with the objective to learn how to use a knife well and to learn the trade’s tricks for later use? Certainly if he fantasized about killing women, he might have done just that.
By the way, I have tried to find ‘tjena’ but haven’t been able to find it. I found ‘tjäna’, but that means ‘serve’ or ‘earn’. What does it mean? Please let me know
Groetjes,
Frank
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1584
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:03 pm: | |
Glenn, is it anything to do with Herp Albert and the Tijuana Brass?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 809
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 8:15 pm: | |
Vrolijk Kerstfeest, Frank!
Yes, I agree, Frank. I don't think we'll get any further regarding that detail. It seems that we are getting a bit closer to each other's points anyway - at least a little bit. And you are not the only one starting to get confused here -- believe you me.
"As it now turns out, you mean ‘thinking rationally’ by this word. Why didn’t you say so in the first place? Because then I would to some extent have agreed with you!"
Ah, I just came up with it. Sometimes language difficulties get the better of me, I'm afraid, which makes it a bit hard to find the right expressions all the time. My big point was, though, that the Hanbury site show that he were able to act irrational, which I think contradicts the conception of a clever and cool killer -- the discussions about Jack as an intelligent killer has to a degree concerned his behaviour as acts of rational thinking. If he were a rational person, he would also be focused on what he set out to do. I think this illustrates to a point that he wasn't "all there".
Looks nice with a pint or two (I wonder if they have any smileys drinking Guinness -- that beer looks like ale...).
"The basis for the timing might have been compulsiveness, impulsiveness, pure cold-bloodedness, arrogance, dare-devilry, mental illness or even planning (although this isn’t very likely). We simply don’t know and we can’t determine from what we know which it actually was, we can only make ‘educated’ guesses. In comparison with the other cases I think in this case Jack for whatever reason did a bad job of weighing up if the site and the time were worth committing a murder in and then only got away because he was lucky."
Here, at least, we seem to be in total agreement.
"But I think we shouldn’t isolate this case from the whole series. Mainly due to the timing Jack may have done a ‘bad job’ in Hanbury Street, certainly for the other outside murders he chose the cover of the night and finally he ended up in that tiny room up Miller’s Court."
That's right. My intention wasn't to isolate Hanbury Street from the other sites, but to put it in an over-all context. Since we can be sure this one was a Ripper murder, then I think it shows that he wasn't that capable of acting rationally, and I think we therefore also have to see the other cases in the light of that -- although the others tend to vary in degree regarding illness and shrewdness.
"But isn’t it possible that he might have gone to work there (only) with the objective to learn how to use a knife well and to learn the trade’s tricks for later use? Certainly if he fantasized about killing women, he might have done just that."
It is possible -- everything is possible, Frank. Although it for me personally feels less constructed and illogical that he actually had had an occupation in the past, before his condition made it harder for him to keep a job. But that deduction is of course based only on my own interpretation of things.
"By the way, I have tried to find ‘tjena’ but haven’t been able to find it. I found ‘tjäna’, but that means ‘serve’ or ‘earn’. What does it mean? Please let me know"
Hehe... That one got you working, didn't it?  Well, you're right that "tjäna" means "serve", but that has got nothing to do with it. "Tjena" is actually a slang expression (yes, it was a bit unfair, really), meaning "hello there" in an informal way, amongst friends on more close basis. More informal than "hej" or "hallå", which are phrases for more neutral situations.
Varma hälsningar
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 810
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 8:19 pm: | |
Robert,
What in Earth do you mean? 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 68
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 1:05 am: | |
Well Glenn, I'll take the 'tjena' as a compliment then, eh!
Now I'm off to work.
Mazzel!
Frank |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 547
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 11:09 am: | |
Hi All,
It seems irrational to me to point to what looks like the riskiest murder and use this as evidence of a disorganised killer of low intelligence. As I’ve said before, if Jack had only animal cunning and luck on his side, any indication to the contrary, in any of the murders, must be incidental and therefore needs to be explained as such.
I’m not saying I believe Jack was into arrogant dare-devilry and further up the food chain than others would like to think – it’s just that I don’t see how this possibility can be so easily dismissed, when you look at the whole picture. Everything a killer does is totally irrational to the rest of us, just as everything an Arctic explorer, or sky diver does seems irrational to me. Yet they can still be extremely bright, and care deeply for their families and friends, while risking all, over and over again, for some very personal goal.
Imagine, while Jack was killing Nichols in August, if anyone had shown him what he would be doing to Eddowes and then Kelly, just a few weeks later, and still getting away with it. None of us can get inside his head, but it seems to me that he did everything he could possibly have dreamed of doing or set out to do. And here are people telling me he wasn’t rational enough, or intelligent enough, to know what he wanted to do, let alone think about how he might go about achieving it. Basically the prostitutes did it all for him and the rest was down to a few nods and winks and a dollop of luck on every occasion he attacked - until something stopped him before he could make a fatal mistake that would catch him out.
That could of course be true. I just don’t see why it has to be.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 331
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 11:22 am: | |
I don't see a disorganised killer her at all. I think Jack the Ripper was an intelligent man and very organised. Maybe I am wrong, but I haven't seen anything which proves he was unintelligent at all.
Sarah  |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 537
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 11:45 am: | |
Guys,
Ok, I may be about to teach my Gran to suck eggs here but a disorganised killer doesnt mean a killer of low intelligence.
Its a killer who doesnt go to any great depths to 'cover' his tracks. He wont go out of his way to hide the body, wont take the victim to a secluded, pre-empted spot to commit his act. Doesnt particularly want to spend time with his victim.
I could go on. I think the confusion reigns because the organised killer thinks through everything.
Its like anyone you meet in life. some plan every last detail, others are not so thorough.
Doesnt mean there is a huge difference in intelligence.....just ones more meticulous.
Thats the way I see it...am I wrong ?
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 336
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 12:03 pm: | |
Monty,
You are right. But you have just pointed out some reasons why Jack wasn't a disorganised killer.
You say that a disorganised killer wont take the victim to a secluded, pre-empted spot to commit his act, whereas Jack takes/follows them to a secluded spot where, I believe you once said, he decides if it a suitable place to kill the prostitute or not.
You also say that he doesnt particularly want to spend time with his victim, but by the amount of mutilations made on Kate and especially Mary's body it suggests as if he's spent quite a bit of time with them, but then why would any killer want to spend to much time with their victim, after all, the police could be rounding the corner at any moment.
Also I believe he was organised as he planned to mutilate them once he had killed them. Why would a disorganised killer want to spend time cutting their victim up when they want to get away.
Although, on the other hand there are aspects which do point at him being disorganised as you say he wont go out of his way to hide the body, which Jack didn't do. But then maybe he planned to leave the bodies in plain view.
Sarah 
(Message edited by sarah on December 18, 2003) |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 543
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 12:27 pm: | |
Sarah,
OK Miss Picky,
None of the murder sites, with the possible exception of Millers court, was a secluded murder site. They were accessible to Joe Public.
He doest want to spend time with them whilst they are alive ! He isnt into the control.
Some disorganised killers mutilate out of curiosity. I believe this to be true with Jack. Its something he just had to do.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 339
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 12:32 pm: | |
Monty,
On the contrary, they were all secluded places for him to do his thing as if he really had been a client then where she had taken him would have been secluded long enough to do the other thing. If that makes sense.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 544
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 12:38 pm: | |
Sarah,
??
Berner st...secluded?
Yard of a House in Hanbury st...secluded?
Yard next to a packed out club...secluded?
Public sq with a nightwatchman and an off duty Rosser in the vicinity...secluded?
Landing of public tennaments...secluded?
Totally secure. No one can enter those areas ?
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 811
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 12:57 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
"Ok, I may be about to teach my Gran to suck eggs here but a disorganised killer doesnt mean a killer of low intelligence. [...] I think the confusion reigns because the organised killer thinks through everything."
I think you are absolutely right. I have myself pointed out that the word "intelligence" here is misleading.
As for your other points, I agree with them completely.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 18, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 812
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 1:11 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I must admit that your post is a bit confusing. What are you saying, really?
"It seems irrational to me to point to what looks like the riskiest murder and use this as evidence of a disorganised killer of low intelligence."
No, not evidence -- sign! There is a difference. I wouldn't claim any feature here as evidence of anything.
And I can't see why it is irrelevant to try to determine whether Jack was rational in his thinking or not. It is indeed true that for us who doesen't indulge ourself in ripping people up, his act -- hopefully -- seems unexplainable and far from our own personal experiences. But that is just playing with words, and to state the obvious.
I can very well join your view concerning animal cunning and luck -- as you know, I have been the one here screaming loudest about instinct and self-preservation in this context (for what it's worth). But although it naturally is hard for us to take a real peek into Jack's brain, there IS a difference between rational and irrational killers and in the way they behave, which in turn can tell us something about who he was and why he did it (even though we most likely won't get a satisfactory answer). To say that all acts of murder are irrational is to avoid the point.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 813
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 1:23 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
"...then why would any killer want to spend to much time with their victim"?
I believe Monty has already answered this, but -- just for clarification -- that point is being mentioned in the context of killers who likes to get to know their victims and spend time with them for rape, torture or even bond with them in a friendly way before they go to attack. To do this is relevant for some psychopaths. Naturally Monty didn't mean "spending time wit the DEAD victim"...
"Why would a disorganised killer want to spend time cutting their victim up when they want to get away."
I think that would be typical for a disorganized, irrational killer. Nothing a disorganized killer does makes sense, Sarah. And the mutilations made by the Ripper were neither necessary or performed in an organized way -- the mutilations in itself are to me the one of the clearest on that we're dealing more with a sick individual than a cunning one.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 551
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 4:32 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Basically, I meant that I’d prefer to see the murder scene that appears the least disorganised being used to argue that Jack attacked on the spur of the moment and got clean away using his instincts and luck rather than any good judgement.
To use the scene that appears the most disorganised, or risky, is not a good choice, because an organised killer could also be one who considers risk-taking a natural part of his act, might even enjoy it. If that were the case, we’d expect to see some pretty narrow escapes, wouldn’t we?
Disorganised Jack just happens to be operating in an area where there are plenty of weak and vulnerable women, begging him to attack them in a location chosen to afford the pair enough time alone together for the purpose. He is lucky, but he is also presumably unaware of just how lucky this makes him.
Why couldn’t an organised Jack be deliberately choosing to take advantage of such ideal opportunities? We know his thing is mutilation after death. And we know that with each new victim (Stride aside), he manages to polish up his act and do a bit more fancy mutilating, despite the fact that the risk factor is going to be a bit of an unknown each time, which only we can really see and assess with hindsight.
If Jack was disorganised, would we expect to see such a regular pattern in the growth of mutilations and organ removal? Wouldn’t it have been far more down to chance, and therefore should have appeared more random? If the risk factor is an unknown quantity at the point of striking, couldn’t the regular escalation of the mutilations be a sign that Jack’s aim – and ultimate achievement (apart from the possible judgement call with Stride) - was to go one better each time, despite the dangers?
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 340
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 4:35 am: | |
Glenn,
killers who like to get to know their victims and spend time with them for rape, torture or even bond with them in a friendly way before they go to attack.
But what if someone just wants to kill them (i.e. not rape or torture them) and not get to know them but he plans how he's going to do it. Is this not organised?
And the mutilations made by the Ripper were neither necessary or performed in an organized way
You see, I disagree. This was planned and therefore organised by the killer. We see the mutilations as unnecessary but in the killer's mind I believe he thought them necessary indeed. We will unfortunately never know why he thought this though.
Monty,
I shall re-phrase what I said as it obviously wasn't very clear. Basically a prostitute would hardly take their client somewhere that the public were waling around all the time. Yes anyone could have walked past but if it was a good enough place to do business with a prostitute and not get caught, then surely (at least in the killer's mind) it was probably a good enough place to kill the woman as indeed it turned out to be.
I can't help but feel that you are contradicting yourself here too. You said before that the killer wouldn't strike if he felt the place wasn't secluded or secure enough and now you're saying that he killed in places that weren't secluded or secure in the slightest.
I hope you now see what I am saying.
Sarah  |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 545
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 4:36 am: | |
Glenn,
Many thanks.
I think you put it far more clearer than I.
Monty
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 546
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 5:39 am: | |
Sarah,
I said what ? cant remember that.
OK, maybe Im not being clear here.
What Im saying is that the killer would not strike if, for whatever reason (enviroment, victim, weather, he saw a magpie), it didnt feel right.
Now the only person that feels a site secluded enough to commit murder is the murderer. Its his call. What is secure and secluded for me may not be for you.
Am I clear ??
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 346
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 6:00 am: | |
Monty,
In a word, no. You are not making any sense to me (although this may just be me).
Here you are again saying the killer would not strike if, for whatever reason (environment, victim, weather, he saw a magpie), it didn't feel right and yet you also say none of the murder sites, with the possible exception of Millers court, was a secluded murder site. They were accessible to Joe Public in an earlier post.
To me this sounds like one minute you are saying he will back off if the place was not right, and then you are saying that where he killed them was not in the best of places.
I do not understand.
Sarah |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
