|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 10:40 pm: |       |
Hi everyone.
As a crime historian from Sweden and mostly concentrating on locally based murders during the late 19th and early 20th century, I consider myself somewhat of a newcomer in the field of Jack the Ripper - that is, in contrast to the other brilliant and serious minds on this forum - and have just recently started to dig into the massive amount of litterature on the subject.
Hopefully I'll be able to register in the nearest future. Still, I can't keep myself from giving som views on Mary Jeanette Kelly and maybe raising a question or two.
Regarding the discussion about Kelly being a Ripper victim (or even being a murder victim at all), Stewart Evans seemed, in the History Channel's documentary History's Mysteries: The Hunt for Jack the Ripper, to have his doubts about Kelly really being a canonical Ripper victim. He claimed that one could possibly only accept three of them if one looked at the method of the killings.
Now, I have the highest regards for Evans as an author and as a researcher of facts - his base of knowledge seems endless - but I sometimes get quite puzzled by his analyzises and his theories regarding the different suspects. I'm well aware that the discussion of criminal profiling is a delicat one, since the field in question not can be tributed as an absolute science. But I still find it quite reasonable to state, that I don't find the way Kelly was murdered and mutilated that different from the ones of other canonical Ripper victims. Naturally, with such old cases like this, we can't be certain of anything, but I myself have no doubt that poor Kelly fell in the hands of JTR, and this is for following reasons:
Her throat was cut, like the other ones and the body was mutilated, although in a more grusome manner. Now, in most cases (involving a serial killer) the metod either stays the same throughout or - as I think in this case - there seem to be an escalating and more fierceful manner in method for each victim. Therefore I don't find any problems with Mary Kelly being a Ripper victims. We can see his mutilating method develop in this direction already from the beginning, from the early attempts with throat-cutting and mutilation in the abdominal area to the more nasty form of slaughtering of Eddows, and then to the extreme with Mary Kelly.
Some say that the extraordinary mutilation of Mary Kelly's body could be a result of the fact that it took part indoors and that the Ripper therefore had more time to "do his job". That, of course, must be taken in consideration (I don't find any reason to contradict such a statement), but facts remain that the violence (and rage?) here has exploded and that he's gone "over the top" more than usual.
Therefore I also disagree with Evans when he claims that Kelly wasn't the last victim. We can't be sure, but I think she was! And mainly for the reasons pointed out above. Although criminal profilers are not totally agreeing with each others on this point, I doubt that JTR psycologically would be able to "go back" to "just" cutting the throat and stab wounds in the lower torso after comitting such a deed as the Kelly murder.
The result of the latter, with such escalating degree of violence, can only be three (and here I agree with my personal favourite crimonologist Martin Fido): either suicide, death by other causes or being comitted to an lunatic asylum (or being arrested for another crime). There would hardly be any other no way back for him after such a traumatic act. But this is my personal view...
Likewise, I can't find no support for the theory based on Mary Kelly being mixed up and that she wasn't the one who was killed. I find it hard to believe that Kelly, after discovering the body, would have the nerv and psycological coldness to change clothes with the dead body - it's quite an interesting theory, but neverthless too far-stretched. The possibility that the witnesses who saw her after her time of death, were mistaken of the time or the date seem to me a more likely scenario.
Finally, I must say that I'm quite impressed by the high standard of the messages on this forum and am certainly thrilled to see such a bundle of professionals in the field taking part in this discussions.
Sorry for writing such a long message, but I'll try to keep it down in the future. I also hope that I'll be excused for the somewhat faltering english, but it's been a while since I've written in anything than my foreign language swedish. If you find anything wrong (or my assumptions totally up the wall), be free to correct me or take my points (although they probably hardly can be regarded as fresh ones) up to debate.
Best regards
Glenn L Andersson
Helsingborg, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 9:15 pm: | |
"(re: Stewart Evans)...to have his doubts about Kelly really being a canonical Ripper victim. He claimed that one could possibly only accept three of them if one looked at the method of the killings."
Hello Glen.
Stewart is not the only one to have reservations about the Kelly murder.
The 3 killings which appear to be inseparable, as you may recall, are those of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.
Now, it is true to say that the there are details about the Kelly murder which raise questions as to it being the work of the same hand.
But, this is countered by the question, "who else could have committed such savagery?".
At one time there was a rumor by way of a story about jealousy, ...a woman named McCarthy who was known for criminal behaviour, ....a possible family connection between the landlord & Mary Jane ....and the overdue rent.
Ingredients for a novel of intrigue, suspense, lust & drama, but to the best of my knowledge no-one has pursued any of these details to fruition.
Could such savagery be committed by a woman in a fit of jealous rage?
Maybe its simpler to settle for Jack the Ripper
Regards, Jon
|
Glenn A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 11:31 pm: | |
Hi there, Jon.
It's true that Evans is not the only one having reservations about this (I'm just having trouble with his analysises -- I haven't yet had the opportunity to read any of his books (but I will), I've only heard him doing remarks in television documentaries -- and so far I can't agree in any of his theories, nor do I share his fascination for Dr Tumblety).
Now, it's also correct that the three murders you refer to (Nichols, Chapman and Eddows) are the ones with most the common features -- absolutely. But I see the slaying of Mary Kelly as a "natural" development of JTR:s actions. The fact that the mutilations in her case is worse can be contributed to the fact that he's becoming bolder and his insanity has reached the top (which is quite common when it comes to serial killers) and also that he's had more time to "work" without interference. The only elements that really seperates the Kelly murder from the others are the nature of the crime scene -- indoors. But is that enough to rule her out as a Ripper victim? Most certainly not, I believe.
Yes, who else? I've heard the stories about jealousy rumors and other theories (like the one involving Barnett as a suspect), but I find it hard to take these seriously. To me they feel like just -- novels and fairy-tales.
"Could such savagery be committed by a woman in a fit of jealous rage?" Well, in theory -- yes! Nothing is impossible. But I certainly find it hard to believe that anyone "new in the game" -- male or female -- could be capable of slaughtering a young woman in such an extreme manner. Kelly's murder is by no means the work of a first-time killer (and not an ordinary killer, by all means!). I see it as a climax on an escalating murder spree -- the fact that the Ripper murders of this violent extent stopped after Mary Kelly indicates that this must be taken in consideration.
I don't know if it is "simpler to settle for Jack the Ripper", but this explanation is doubtless a more natural one and applies more to my own common sense. I also believe that the facts and the psycological profile of a killer like JTR doesen't contradict such a statement.
But -- who can tell, really?
Nice talking to you, Jon.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 11:58 am: | |
"I certainly find it hard to believe that anyone "new in the game" -- male or female -- could be capable of slaughtering a young woman in such an extreme manner. Kelly's murder is by no means the work of a first-time killer (and not an ordinary killer, by all means!)."
Now thats understandable, in fact thats how I feel about Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.
The choking, (he must have got her to lay down somehow, unconscious).
The cutting of the throat, one cut to the artery, one slice around the neck (two cuts).
The attack to the abdomen, vertical cuts, (controversy over how many cuts).
This pattern appears to repeat itself in all three, and all seems very methodical, like "this is the way its done, this is the way I do it, I know what I'm doing".
I have always held the opinion that this killer had killed before, not a beginner, even with Nichols.
Now as for Kelly, do we see evidence of choking?
The throat 'was' cut, the abdomen 'was' attacked, but by vertical cuts, or what?
With regards to the throat Dr Bond notes "distinct ecchymosis", However, I wonder why he phrased it the way he did. What was he saying?
"the skin cuts in the neck show distinct ecchymosis"
Firstly, the plural 'cuts', like the other victims the throat was cut more than once, dare we assume twice? He also notes "the 5th & 6th vertebrae being deeply notched", suggests two cuts?, I think so.
But, why do the 'skin cuts' show this ecchymosis?
If the victim had been strangled, the bruising would be around the neck, and no need to connect the bruising with the cuts. Strangulation by hands has nothing to do with the horizontal cuts by a knife.
Am I making myself clear?
Some have suggested the 'ecchymosis' is evidence of strangulation, this maybe so, but Bond does not say 'the neck (throat) showed signs of ecchymosis' he said "the cuts showed signs", this may mean something quite different.
To me Dr Bond is saying the haemorrhages are following along the lines of the cut(s). In other words, on either side of the cuts he observed distinct haemorrhaging in the skin.
Now do we infer this to be normal or do we infer it to be unexpected?
If a cord (garrott?) was used on the throat this would cause the haemorrhages noted by Bond, then the knife was used along the line left by the cord, hence the result would be ecchymosis following along the line of the cut(s).
And that is exactly what Dr Bond stated, "the cuts showed signs of ecchymosis", not the throat in general.
Am I reading too much into this?
To the best of my knowledge haemorrhaging is not usually noted as a result of a slashing of the throat, in fact it is more the result of the heart pumping but the blood not having anywhere to exit. This is a symptom of strangulation either by garrott or by hands or some other means.
But if there is no evidence elsewhere on the neck of strangulation then we must look to the use of a cord or similar device.
And no evidence of bruising left by thumbs/fingers was noted in this case, or any of the previous cases.
Haemorrhages come in different sizes, for those who are interested, small pinpricks are classified as 'Petechiae', about .5" dia are 'Purpura', larger are 'Ecchymosis' and massive are 'Haematoma'.
They are all degrees of haemorrhaging.
So, to sum this up I see evidence of strangulation, but by some means other than finger/thumbs, and two cuts to the throat.
This is similar enough to the previous three to cause concern.
Unfortunately, the abdomen was too extensively cut to determine in what way the cuts initially ran. But, the object of the murderer was the same.
And, as in the previous three cases, (2 out of 3) the killer removed the uterus. This he did also with Kelly, and this is enough to link the purpose as the same.
The fact he left the uterus behind may be the result of some detail we are not aware. The point though is 'it was removed'.
"The fact that the mutilations in her case is worse can be contributed to the fact that he's becoming bolder and his insanity has reached the top (which is quite common when it comes to serial killers) and also that he's had more time to "work" without interference."
My only concern here is the use of the term 'insanity'.
Unless we know the motive, the reason for him doing what he did we should be causious about how we use the word 'insane'.
The very act of murder, however it is achieved, can be said to be irrational, ergo, 'insane', even temporarlily, but, we must not assume the killer was generally 'insane'.
I think what we have learned about his conduct (presumed conduct) this killer was far from insane.
Regards, Jon
(sorry for rambling)
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 508
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 12:42 pm: | |
Hi Glenn, Jon
Jon, if the killer used a cord, how can we account for the defensive wounds? If Kelly was being throttled, wouldn't her instinct be to free herself from the cord rather than defend herself from the knife?
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 1:07 pm: | |
Er, somehow, I would hope that any definition of "insanity" would include the behavior displayed in Miller's Court.
Details, details. Chapman & Eddowes seem to have been killed by a left-handed assassin, Kelly by a right. I can't quite shake the crazy notion that the m.o., the mood, the mise-en-scene, is slightly...wrong. |
Glenn L Andersson
Police Constable
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 2:37 pm: | |
Hi, Jon.
"My only concern here is the use of the term 'insanity'.
Unless we know the motive, the reason for him doing what he did we should be causious about how we use the word 'insane'.
The very act of murder, however it is achieved, can be said to be irrational, ergo, 'insane', even temporarlily, but, we must not assume the killer was generally 'insane'.
I think what we have learned about his conduct (presumed conduct) this killer was far from insane"
I must admit, I can't agree with you here, Jon or fully understand your point. Most serial killers have no motive whatsoever for their conduct, merely a drive to satisfy their instincts and dark needs. I don't see Jack the Ripper as an exception from this. And as Palmer indivates, I think the Miller's Court murder shows insanity enough. There is nothing to indicate that Jack the Ripper acted out of carefully planned schemes, only methods that suited his irrational purposes and that were convenient for him. But this is my personal opinion.
However Kelly was strangled or not (based on haemorrhage) -- and how -- I prefer to pass on to those who are gifted with knowledge in natural science or human anatomy. I'm unfortunately not.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 3:31 pm: | |
Robert.
An excellent question, re - the defensive wounds.
This point in particular I have used in the past to argue against strangulation (by whatever means).
The cuts to her arms and right-hand tend to suggest her attacker was holding a knife in one hand, therefore how could he be strangling her with the other hand?.
Yes, he could have had one hand across her throat, pressing it down on the bed, for instance. But, this is a precarious situation for the killer, she could kick & scream her way out, certainly making much noise also allowing her to struggle & fight.
The defensive wounds certainly indicate she was awake while he held the knife, and that is/was (had to be?) a problem for the killer.
Not the methodical JtR approach.
Glenn.
"Most serial killers have no motive whatsoever for their conduct, merely a drive to satisfy their instincts and dark needs."
And that is motive enough.
Do you recall the murderer, Chikatilo?
Do you remember the reason he stalked, murdered and mutilated his victims?
His need was his motive, his actions, though bizarre to us, are what satisfied his need.
Andrei Chikatilo was not generally insane, and that is a major problem with serial killers, they 'are' normal, with the exception that they slip into an 'abnormal phase' in order to satisfy their needs. This is not general insanity, though for a period of time (minutes/hours?) they are overcome by an unnatural and insatiable desire.
That, to me at least, is only periodic insanity.
Chikatilo, as are most serial killers, was perfectly normal (sane) for days, weeks, months, then he would change (snap?).
Chikatilo even stopped for a long period, as did JtR. If I remember correctly, Chikatilo was normal so long as he felt at ease and was treated as an equal by his workplace associates. We are certainly fortunate in having this sexual serial-killer to interview to help understand a mind such as this.
What was 'Jacks' need?
What was his motive?
Without knowing this we cannot be sure what message the medical evidence is giving us.
R.J.
Chapman & Eddowes murdered by a south-paw?
(gasp)
Regards, Jon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Police Constable
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 5:49 pm: | |
Hi Jon.
"His need was his motive, his actions, though bizarre to us, are what satisfied his need."
I don't like splitting hairs or get stuck in interpretation of words, but that's hardly what I call a motive. By "motive" i refer to something that's planned, that the murders have a more significant purpose besides the actual killing. A need or drive, pressed on by strong psycological forces, or an urge can not in my interpretation be considered a motive.
I agree, however, that there is a problem regarding the label "insane", and it's interesting that you're referring to Chikatilo in this context. It is not impossible at all that the Ripper had irrational, murderous periods between normal, sane ones -- to begin with, at least. There are strong indications that he probably had a regular job, even though he seemed to have lost his grip totally by the time of the murder in Miller's Court. If he were anything like Ted Bundy, however, he most likely would be considerned a psycopath, but also totally sane. This group of killers are mainly considered intelligent, though, and balanced -- totally in control between the outbursts. I can't confirm exactly why, but this profile doesn't suit me in relation to JTR.
Jack the Ripper seem to me more the "chaotic" killer type, like someone who is not in control at all but know the area enough to disappear without being caught. Again, I don't have any proof of this -- I'm merely thinking out loud here...
Periodic insanity or not, I don't think Jack the Ripper had any deeper intentions with his killings -- he may have had his reasons, though, for killing female prostitutes -- like a general hatred of women or, more likely, hatred of women of the street (if that is the case, we probably will never know why) -- but that is something else.
By the way, Jon, just of curiosity... as an ignorant swede I must ask: what is a "south-paw"?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 11:39 pm: | |
R.J.
To reply to your point about Millers Court, (re: display of insanity?)
Your question is from an emotional perspective. From a psychological perspective it boils down to two issues.
First, to quote Robert Keppel, "it comes down to a matter of choices".
Dahmer, Chikatilo, Shawson, Bundy all made conscious choices. In no case was there an overiding compulsion to commit murder & mutilate.
None of their crimes were committed in front of witnesses. None could claim, "I had no choice".
Second, "did the killer know he was doing wrong?".
Unnaimously, I think you will agree, that in all cases the answer is 'yes'. Therefore, in all those cases there is no argument for insanity.
How does this apply to JtR?
Specifically, to answer your question about Millers Court.
R.J., how many people do you think do socially unacceptible acts behind closed doors?. It doesn't need to be murder.
Just for once go out in public and do them. Will you be embarrassed?, arrested? or judged insane?
Of course, and rightly so, therefore you know you are doing wrong, so you do it indoors.
What JtR did at Millers Court he did behind closed doors, therefore, he cannot be judged 'insane' because of it. However, if he did it in front of witnesses, in daylight, this would be easily argued that he was under an uncontrolable compunction and did not know right from wrong, therefore the killer may be judged insane.
That is the difference R.J.
In order to pre-judge JtR insane you must satisfy yourself that from what we know of the crimes we can tell he did not know right from wrong. Also, you may have to show he was under an uncontrollable compunction to murder and mutilate regardless of location, time of day or witnesses.
What JtR did, he did for a reason, that reason is his motivation, his motive. We do not know what his motive was.
Regards Jon |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 11:46 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
"A need or drive, pressed on by strong psycological forces, or an urge can not in my interpretation be considered a motive."
Glenn, surely a crime historian such as yourself must be aware of hundreds of cases where a serial killer's only compulsion was a need to satisfy some 'urge' or 'desire', whether sexual or otherwise. What was this killers motivation?....they all have one, some are tangible (materialistic), some are intangible (emotional).....but they are all motives.
Incidently, a 'south-paw' is a boxing term for a left-hander.
Regards, Jon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Police Constable
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 11:34 am: | |
Hi Jon.
OK. So what we're dealing with here is that we interpret words and concepts differently. I withold that a compulsion is not the same as motive -- not in my use of the word. Some serial killers are aware that what they´re doing is wrong but they don't know why they're doing it. You are assuming, that all serial killers (yes, I have stumbled onto a hundred cases or so...) are aware of the reasons for their conduct -- they don't! There may certainly be a reason, but if you as a killer aren't aware of this reason or don't know why you're doing the murders, then there is no motive -- just a drive to kill. A motive you must know and be aware of -- and sometimes plan. Whatever that reason may be in JTR:s case, we most likely will never know, though. We can only speculate.
"What JtR did at Millers Court he did behind closed doors, therefore, he cannot be judged 'insane' because of it. However, if he did it in front of witnesses, in daylight, this would be easily argued that he was under an uncontrolable compunction..."
Actually, I really don't see what indoors or outdoors has to do with if he's "insane" or not -- by looking at the state of the body in Miller's Court we at least can establish that there is certainly something serously wrong with him.
So, yes, I think he knew that what he was doing was wrong. And legally, that makes him responsible for his actions (if he were a psycopath, he never could be treated with therapy anyway). I may have been sloppy in using the term "insane" to broadly, while you probably strictly use the legal definition -- my mistake. However, I stand firm to my definition of motive.
All the best, Jon.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 12:37 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
Ok, so we agree on "knowing right from wrong", so, let me explain my other point.
I was taking the lead from Robert Keppel, in his work, 'Signature Killers'.
"It all comes down to choices, the killers choose to stalk, abduct, murder, mutilate, and in some cases hide the bodies. This is not uncontrolled compulsion, such a killer is determined to be sane" (paraphrase)
and again....
"If a person can control his actions, even though they seem bizarre, deviant, and beyond the scope of normal behavior, then the person is considered, willful, deliberate and ultimately sane." (quote)
So, regardless of what JtR did, or where he did it, it appears on face value, he had self control, chose to act as he did, and knew right from wrong.
Admitting, we know very little about these murders, but from what we know, I feel indications are he was 'sane'.
Regards, Jon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Police Constable
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 6
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 4:03 pm: | |
Hi again, Jon.
OK. I don't think we're getting much further in that dicussion without splitting hairs.
But I must say that I don't totally agree with that quote from Robert Keppel. He is, by no means, the only one having done work on this subject and others have a different opinion. At least , his explanation ceartinly doesn't fit all serial killers -- or all killers in general.
I think he, in my personal opinion, is totally wrong when he considers that it all comes down to choices. Even if a killer deep in his mind know that what he's doing is wrong, that doesn't mean that he can't act irrationally. (Please don't read into this that I am defending JTR:s actions!!!!!) Many killers know that their act is wrong, but they still can't control their impulses, because the urge (some hear voices, other just feel a compulsion) gets too strong. They may have gotten rid of their torments for the time being when the've committed a murder, but they seldom enjoy it. This is the chaotic murderer, for the most part semi-intelligent or with low intelligence.
Then we have calculating murderers, manipulative and cunning and who enjoy what they do. Often very intelligent, above average. The ultimate psycopath.
I find it more likely that the Ripper is among the first category, based on the nature of his murders. The only thing we have that's indicating intelligence here, is that he managed to slip away after each murder. That is not satisfying enough for me.
There are differences here -- whether the Ripper's sane or insane. I don't think it's valid to pack them all in the same bundle and generalize, as Mr. Keppel appearently seem to do.
Well well, I think it's all a matter of opinion, really. I don't want to be a  about it.
But who knows, maybe old Jack was a well-educated sinister murderer with high intelligence, after all, or someone in total control. But something tells me that is not the case.
Best regards
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
Glenn.
It's always good to have opposing views, heaven forbid we should all agree on something.
I think we've flogged this to death.
Regards, Jon
(Etymology: Flogged = perhaps modification of Latin flagellare to whip.
: to beat with or as if with a rod or whip.
: to criticize harshly)
|
Glenn L Andersson
Police Constable
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 9
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 11:10 pm: | |
Hello Jon.
Thank you for the glossary. I seem to learn something new everyday here. Great fun.
P.S. Finally I found an excuse in my last message to use the "bang the head against the wall"-clip art. I think it's among the funniest ones..
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 2:18 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Personally, everything about the murders screams cool, calculated, rational killer to me.
There's:
1) Escape, as you mention.
2) Not letting facts slip to enough people to end up getting caught (truly insane people would think nothing of admitting what they had done).
3) Location of killings. Most were fairly secluded spots.
4) Choice of victims. Most were very weak.
5) Method of killing. Extremely silent and efficient ways to kill and not draw attention while doing so.
6) Timing of killings. Suggest that he killed when he had time to, on weekends or holidays, on a schedule of some sort. Late at night also.
Truly insane people would attack in public, noisily, without trying to hide anything. Now certainly there's a sliding scale between totally irrational bonkers and totally cold-blooded and rational, but I think Jack fits far more towards organized and well-planned than chaotic and crazy.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 19
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 10:54 am: | |
Hi Dan,
Well, as we don't know his identity we can't be certain either way regarding his character. But as you probably know by now, to me the murders screams the complete opposite, although I can't confirme it with facts. But your views are interesting.
The escape thing is the part, I think, that could speak for the theory of a more cunning criminal.
The other thing is the tendency of collecting trophies (the removing of wombs, kidneys and heart).
Anyhow. Regarding, slippning through facts (i'm not sure I fully understand your point here, but that could be due to language difficulties) there is a theory (for what it's worth) that some in East End actually knew he was the perpetrator, but wanted to protect him. This is probably a higly problematic theory, but nevertheless it has been suggested. We can't, however, be certain of why information about him didn't slip out, it could just as well a coincident -- if he knew the area it probably wouldn't have been too hard for him to dissapear through the alleys or among the crowds of people (these were overcrowded parts of London).
The locations. That the murder sites were secluded shouldn't mean something, in my mind. Even a less intelligent killer would probably have enough instinct of self-preservation to do his act in a spot where he could "work" without disturbance. It doesn't have to point at rational behaviour.
The victims were prostitutes. They were in a exposed, vulnerable position and even though there was a killer loose, the had to work -- there were no other alternatives. And their occupation itself brought a great deal of unsecurity and hazards, which made his job fairly easy -- in comparing to other kind of victims. They were simply suitable objects to attack. Therefore he didn't need to be that cunning or clever to pull it off. Anyway, we don't know he's real reason for picking prostitutes and if there were any other motive. So here we are totally lost, I fear.
Method of killing. I can partly agree with you here, although the fact that he started with strangulation or slashing their throats before he performed the mutilations, would have easily silenced his victims effectively. I wonder how clever you need to be as a killer to figure that out...
Timing of killings. Could indicate that he had some sort of occupation or was abscent from London during the weekdays. I beieve, though, that if he were "chaotic and crazy", he most likely had periods of insanity.
When I look at the character of the killings he committed, I -- unlike you -- se features that are more sick than organized. I assume he that lived in Whitechapel due to the fact that he managed to escape and most likely knew the area extremely well. I'm not so sure "truly insane people" would attack in public, but I can't bet any money on the contrary either. I for my part don't see any real evidence of well-planned schemes in connection with the Ripper.
The idea of an intelligent, rational killer with a certain motive beyond the killing itself is based on the old myths of JTR, I think. The reality is hardly ever that exiting.
However, I'm not saying your wrong -- you could very much be totally right in all your conclusions and instincts. My insticts (and my interpretations of some of the facts) tells me something completely different, though}.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Maryanne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 6:59 pm: | |
Wow a fascinating post! He certainly wasn't a normal person though was he? A completely rational person wouldn't do all that he does. Hitler was mad and look at what he done, he had to plan everything out. Perhaps Jack had multiple personality or was schizophrenic, he could've also been ambidextrous (bet I spelt that wrong). He could've also been a woman. Been able to move around more freely then.
I wonder if he did kill more than just five? Perhaps he used different methods previously. Perhaps he/she did only go totally beserk with Kelly owing to the privacy of the room - or he/she just wanted to demonstrate how much work she could actually undertake in an hour or so! |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 298
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 11:50 am: | |
Maryanne,
Mad? Why mad?
Ive always seen Jack as rational.....just that he isnt held by the constraints of morality.
Apart from Dan, Am I the only one ?
Monty |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 402
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 12:40 pm: | |
Holy Christ, it seems like a thousand years ago since I started this thread -- had nearly forgotten about it. Thanks for the response, by the way, Maryanne.
No Monty, you are not the only one with that opinion, according to some posts on the board.
But no, Monty, I don't see him as a rational bloke and I don't see him as an organized psycopath, like some do. The terminology regarding insanity in this field can sometimes lead to difficulties and misleading interpretations, but my bet is that he was a person with strong psyciatric problems, maybe a paranoid schizofrenic with periods of insanity. I don't see any planning, and no immediate motive or signs of cunning behaviour in connection with the murders.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 299
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 11:26 am: | |
Glenn,
To a degree I see your point.
As for motive, there was a reason for him to do what he did. Just because we cannot figure nor understand it doesnt mean it did not exsist.
And that reason surely is his motive, no? A drive for his own gratification perhaps, who knows.
But whatever that motive is surely its immediate to him.
I do see cunning. I cant imagine how he could have carried on without it.
But I do take on your ponts and dont wish to sound disrespectful.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 411
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 11:44 am: | |
Hi Monty,
No sweat, Monty. I see your points as well. You don't sound respectful at all; you are totally welcome to disagree.
I think regarding motive, the term itself leads to a lot of misunderstanding. This could of course be my own interpretation of it, but when I say motive I mean a more deep reason or a elaborate scheme for his conduct, other than just the need to kill (the Royal Conspiracy theory reveals such a motive). In my view there is a profound difference between "reason" and "motive". Serial murders who are assumed to be performed just for the drive to kill certian groups or individuals are often by criminologists referred to as "motiveless". But it could be that I abuse the term. It could very well be that there is a deeper motive with his conduct, but I can't say I see any signs of this.
No, I don't see any cunning at all. He wouldn't have to use any, according to the circumstances of the murders. The modus operandi and the signature (the mutilations) I think more points at a mentally sick individual than an intelligent one. But I think he had self-preservation, that he knew the area extremely well and that he was lucky that the police of the time was totally inexperienced in these type of criminals. In my view he takes too many unnecessary risks to be categorized as a cunning killer.
Thanks for the response, Monty.
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Perkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 3:44 pm: | |
Hello all.
I'm a complete newcomer here, but I have to make one point which I haven't seen anyone else make anywhere. An earlier post stated "The only elements that really seperates the Kelly murder from the others are the nature of the crime scene -- indoors." This isn't true.
ALL of the canonical victims, and most of the non-canonical, were of the same approximate physical description. Height, weight, age, hair color, eye color, build and in most cases clothing were always the same EXCEPT for Kelly, who was much younger, blond and by most accounts fairly attractive. If the other victims were more varied, this wouldn't mean much, but the fact that he seems to have chosen victims of a particular type does establish a pattern. For Kelly do be included, a reason must be found for JTR to have broken this pattern in this one instance.
To me, it could be reasonably argued that Kelly was killed by someone who was familiar with the JTR murders , but who did not know the true extent of the injuries. (Given the sensationalism of the case in the papers of the time, that would have included the vast majority of London). This person mutilated Kelly in an attempt to make it LOOK like a Ripper killing, but in his attempt to disguise his part went too far in his mutilations; either through ignorance of the true injuries in the other cases, an attempt to destroy any evidence left behind or because he simply found that he enjoyed it.
Mind you, I'm not claiming there's any proof of this, but it at least merits comsideration. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
The Whitechapel murderer was carrying out I would say half a dozen well-considered plans thoroughout his murder series. They are entirely intelligible in the case evidence. But they are so monstrously perverted in nature that in over a century nobody has dared hazzard a guess as to what they were.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2003
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
