|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 627
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 6:04 pm: |       |
G'day Monty,
Jeff Hamm and I are trying to make an educated guess at what sort of questions Joseph Barnett may have had to answer during his 'inner-circle' interrigation. Is there any official documentation of any suspect interrigation for any murder in late 19th century London that we can look at?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 621
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 6:19 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
You're not still saying that Barnett murdered two women on his way to work, are you?
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 227
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 7:20 am: | |
Hi LEANNE,
Again, Im looking for evidence that states there were stalls being set up in Orange market at or around 1.30am.
There is nothing.
'Inner circle' interrigation ?? Thats a new one on me....could you explain ??
Monty
 |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 630
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 10:21 am: | |
G'day Monty,
Detectives work in 'circles'. It is standard detective work to interview a victims 'inner-circle' first, (ie Husband, Wife, Children, Room-mates, maids etc). That's where alot of murders are solved. Then they look at the next 'circle', including neighbours, friends who visit daily, regular clients, etc.), then they move out to the next 'circle'.
I'll help you find something about who was in the orange market at that time, tomorrow. It's half-past midnight here! Good night!
LEANNE |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 228
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 10:46 am: | |
Leanne,
Got ya. thanks.
Blenkinsopp and his unidentified man, 2 unknown witnesses and a few firemen....thats all I got in the place.
Monty
|
ghost
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 9:11 am: | |
is it possible that jack the ripper was killing because he had a illnes that he got from one of the prostitutes so he killed the prostitutes from revenge. |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 124
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 2:35 pm: | |
Ghost, possible, but not likely. If just killing prostitutes were his motive, there were over 2,000 to chose from; all from different parts of Whitechapel, varied social and ethnic backgrounds, and all could be taken to a secluded spot for a few shillings. If any prostitute would do, this is what in the In the military is called a "Target rich environment." Why stop at just a handful spread out over a few months?
Shannon |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 307
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 7:33 am: | |
Shannon,
Whoa there...what do you mean not likely ?
Imprisonment/death, good reasons to stop ??
I think its highly likely. Not my No1 but never the less.
A far better reason than to scare someone off the streets.
Monty
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 162
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 2:56 am: | |
Monty, if any prostitute would do, he would have been able to select a lot more than the ones he did. In a place like Whitechapel with all the small dark alleyways and old buildings to pick from the killer could have struck at will. The fact that he only killed a handful in 4 months says he was selective in his victims. There is more to the choice he made than their possible occupation.
If he were a real serial killer, the euphoria from the kill would have easily outweighed the fear or going to jail. If you have noticed serial killers are either caught or killed. They do not just quit. Now on the other hand a mass murderer can quit once the objective has been met. So question is which was he and how did he choose his victims?
Shannon |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 29
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 3:40 am: | |
It seems to me that a mass murderer would have been a lot less selective than a serial killer. At least, that's the case with all the ones I've heard and/or read anything about. And in any case, a "cooling-off" period between murders is crucial to the definition of a serial killer. Thus, I would expect there to be relatively significant periods of time between the murders in the work of a serial killer. Furthermore, they are often known to be quite selective when choosing their victims. The circumstances have to be just right. I'd say 4-5 in a period of a few months is pretty much par for the course as far as serial killers are concerned, though many have been known to go for longer periods of time between kills. A mass murderer on a "mission" to rid Whitechapel of whores, for example, wouldn't be nearly so picky and wouldn't wait as long between murders, either.
California serial killer Ed Kemper turned himself in. William Heirens begged the police to catch him. John Douglas thinks it's just possible that the BTK Strangler was scared off by the police attention and found his crime scene photographs stimulating enough that he didn't feel the need to commit any more murders. There's a gap of several years between confirmed Green River slayings. The solution? The guy who is most likely the Green River Killer had met a woman and for one reason or another didn't feel the need to kill any more prostitutes while they were together. So I don't think the end of the series should necessarily be seen as confirmation that Jack was a mass murderer; he fits the pattern of a serial sex killer far better. Any number of reasons could account for the cessation of the murders--he went to prison for something else, he moved, he was admitted to a mental hospital--you get the idea. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 165
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 5:11 am: | |
Erin, it depends on the mass murdered's agenda. If he is targeting specific callings; say doctors, he may chose male, female, young, old, black, white, whatever. But, if he has a specific target in mind in which all the victims have the same traits he may appear to be a serial killer in many ways; however, he fails to meet the one criteria and that is enjoyment. A mass murderer kills for a cause, and not for enjoyment. A serial killer does it for the rush they achieve.
There is NOTHING to suggest these murders were sexually motivated.
Shannon |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 33
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
If the mutilation and removal of the sexual organs doesn't make something a sex crime, I don't know what does!!! Check out Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives or Douglas's and Hazelwood's "The Lust Murderer." Actual penetration is NOT necessary.
You honestly think zealots don't achieve some measure of personal satisfaction from their "missions?" Furthermore, I think you're confusing enjoyment with sexual gratification and/or the satisfaction of one's desire to manipulate, dominate, and control. There is no template for serial murderers. It's not a Chinese menu--pick something from Column A, something from Column B, and poof! You have a serial killer.
Let's not take everything quite so literally, folks. If you don't keep an open mind you can end up with tunnel vision, something that's kept a lot of murder cases from being solved. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 169
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 4:02 pm: | |
Erin, if you do a bit more reading you will discover that an attack by a male to the sex organs of an older woman during a serial killing is not sexual in nature, it is a psychological attack on the place he came from, meaning the killer wishes he had never been born. There is no sexual intention in the Ripper murders.
Zealots do not receive enjoyment in the way you think. They give the glory of the kill to the higher power that ordained it. Their personal gratification comes in seeing the work of the master being done through their hands, not in the kill itself...
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 576
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 7:24 pm: | |
Shannon, Erin,
Sorry to barge in here, but, Shannon, I do believe the signature (the mutilations) have a sexual meaning. The satisfaction lies in the mutilations, not the modus operandi, and there is no reason whatsoever to exclude the possibility of Jack the Ripper being a sexual maniac. Most profilers would agree (for what it's worth) that the signature here is sexually motivated and that that is the important pattern to consider.
Then I must say I am quite puzzled by the terminology used here regarding mass murderers. As far as I know, the difference between a serial killer and a mass murderer, is that the latter kills several people at the same time, or during one single incident - like when a pupil goes into the school and blows the head of all his class mates, or when a terrorist blows up a building full of peolple (characters like the Unabomber, for example). That has nothing to do with Jack the Ripper whatsoever. If I am wrong here, there are several books in my City library I have to get access to and burn immediately.
As far as the choice of victms is concerned, I believe they were "opportunity victims", that is randomly picked as individuals, but chosen in the meaning of belonging to a certain category, like prostitutes (or that he took them for prostitutes) - maybe because he feared/hated prostitutes or just because they were more vulnerable.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 172
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 7:55 pm: | |
Glenn, best to head out for the library with a can of petrol and some matches. A mass murderer is not always a single instance killer who takes many lives. A mass murderer is also someone who selectivly kills over and over again. Ted Kazinski; the uni bomber for one, used the same device to kill again and again. He was did not see the victims he killed, only on the news afterwards did he discover if he was successful or not.
Shannon |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 800
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 8:35 pm: | |
G'day,
From 'The Anatomy Of Motive', by John Douglas:
A Serial Killer: is someone that has murdered on at least 3 occasions with an emotional cooling-off period between, which could be days, weeks, months, even years.
A Mass Murderer: Is someone who has killed 4 or more victims in one location in one incident.
A Spree Killer: is someone who kills 2 or more victims at different locations in a short period of hours or days, with no-cooling off period.
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 578
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 8:41 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
"A mass murderer is also someone who selectivly kills over and over again."
That sounds like a serial killer to me, I really don't see the difference. As I've read it, a mass murderer is someone who kills a greater number of known or unknown individuals at the same during one specific incident (regardless if it happens once or at several occasions), mostly for ideological reasons but can also be personal.
The intent is, that an undefined group or more than one individual at the same time should become victims during an operation, while serial killers murder one specific victim at multiple occasions. think that is quite a logical definition, and the books I've read have been quite firm on that point. Examples of this are terrorists, suicide bombers etc.
Well, I better check it out further, before I light those matches, then...
But in the context of Jack the Ripper, I find the mass murder discussion strange and rather unfit, to say the least.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 579
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 8:44 pm: | |
Thank you, Leanne. That's what I thought!
Now, I better fetch that bucket of water...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 173
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 9:03 pm: | |
Glenn, not so fast with the bucket...
A serial killer chooses victims that meet his criteria. Usually they are a representation of something in his life that they want to hurt.
A mass murdered/spree killer (I am grouping them together because the two overlap on a lot of decisions as to which one it is) choose their victims because of circumstance (co-workers or a group that happen to be together for no other reason than they are all in one location at the time of the killings.
A serial killer needs a cooling off period of days, weeks or years as Leanne pointed out, so either you are not dealing with a serial killer or one of the two; Liz or Kate is not a victim.
If you don’t have a serial killer on your hands, you have to have either a spree killer or a mass murderer. A spree killer kills over a few hours or a few days, so that eliminates the Ripper as his murders took place over a few months.
Odd man out - the only type of killer left is a mass murderer with an agenda and the patience to wait until his selected victim is available for the kill...
So which is it? Is Jack a serial, spree, or mass killer? cant be all three, and fails to meet the test for any particular one, unless that is you remove one of the victims from the list...
Shannon
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 174
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 9:07 pm: | |
Leanne: "a mass murderer is someone who kills a greater number of known or unknown individuals at the same during one specific incident (regardless if it happens once or at several occasions), mostly for ideological reasons but can also be personal."
Hmmm Lets see... known or unknow individuals, several occasions, and can be for personal reasons...
Very good description of Jack, dont you think?
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 580
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 9:36 pm: | |
I hate academic discussions regarding definitions, but you are totally missing the point, Shannon. Or are you putting me on?
(Hey, that quote in your last message was mine, not Leanne's.)
The key words here are several victims "at the same time during one specific incident" or "4 or more victims in one location in one incident". This is a mass murderer. We don't have such a scenario in connection to the Ripper murders, where one victim was killed at each occasion and location. This is quite obvious, Shannon. Or do you, for example, see four Chapman in Hanbury Street or four Eddowes in Mitre Square when we only see one? Besides, a cooling-off period doesen't have to occure between every victim.
The discussions regarding if victims are chosen by circumstance or not, have nothing whatsoever to do with mass murder and is totally irrelevant - Jack the Ripper is absolutely not a mass murderer; he is a serial killer (and in that case, a spree killer at the time of the double event). You have gotten it all mixed up. Douglas definition is clear and correct, and I see no reason to twist it into something it doesen't say.
Now, if you excuse me, I have a fire to put out...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 175
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 9:58 pm: | |
Glenn, you are the one who uses text book definitions for everythng , and now you seem to think that the killer is a serial killer, but only for the first two murders and then he becomes a spree killer for the 3rd and 4th, and once again reverts back to being a serial killer for the next murder. I have a very difficult time with your logic.
So, not so fast with the bucket...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 176
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 9:59 pm: | |
Glenn, you seem to think that the killer is a serial killer, but only for the first two murders and then he becomes a spree killer for the 3rd and 4th, and once again reverts back to being a serial killer for the next murder.
I have a very difficult time with your logic.
So, not so fast with the bucket...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 177
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 10:00 pm: | |
oopps double posted it.. sorry... |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 581
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 10:15 pm: | |
To continue this pointless dicussion, I don't think Jack the Ripper was thinking about which kind of killer he was or worked after a certain scheme - I it is nevertheless obvious that he wasn't a mass murderer.
According to the definitions above, ol' Jacky appearently turned into a spree killer the night of the double event. Eddowes and Stride was killed with less than an hour between them (that is, if Stride was a Ripper victim; if she wasn't, that part of the discussion naturally is redundant). I don't think that was something that concerned him much, though...
But of course he is a serial killer, without doubt - "at least 3 occasions with an emotional cooling-off period between, which could be days, weeks..." What logic is hard to understand?
Once again, are you sure you're not putting me on?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
