|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 11:26 am: |       |
Hi Sherlock,
I agree that eye witnesses can be far from reliable. And I don't think any of the surviving eye witness accounts can safely be taken as a reliable indicator that a specific named suspect was with a victim shortly before the body was discovered.
All I meant was that if the killer was seen in company with one or more of his victims, I'd have expected the difference in the heights of the man and the woman to have been particularly memorable, if the man was Tumblety.
This was brought home to me recently as I was watching my daughter playing pool with her boyfriend in the garden. It was so painfully obvious when they stood there talking to each other just how much bigger and taller than her he was, that I couldn't imagine how such a difference in size between the ripper and his victims would have gone unremarked upon if any of the witnesses had really clapped their mince pies on the quack doc, even a mere shadowy outline of him.
Of course you are free to put your faith in the theory of your choice, as I am free to express my opinion that while Tumblety could have been Jack, I think he probably wasn't.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
Sherlock--Hi. Keep in mind that if John Boyd Malvo wasn't caught last October, future crime historians writing about the "Unsolved Beltway Sniper Mystery" would have written with great authority and confidence about white loners in white vans. An object lesson. All the best, RP |
H McGuire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 12:54 pm: | |
In the Washington Post article of Nov 18, 1890 (posted elsewhere here), the reporter states, "Dr. Tumblety is an enormous man, over six feet in height, with broad shoulders." His enormity seems an obvious observation, which may be the main stickler for me. I enjoyed the book positing him as JTR, but it left open the similar Jamaica murders which might implicate a sailor. |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 31
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 12:00 am: | |
Caz, Mutt and Jeff would be a good description of Tumblety and any of the ladies other than Stride as they all ranged in height from 5'0" to 5'2" and the Dr was over 6' which is tall by 19th century standards. As far as eye witness reliability, its questionable, but, a difference of a foot or more would have at least produced a response indicating the difference in height.
Shannon |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 12:57 pm: | |
I agree, Shannon.
So I don't believe Tumblety was seen talking to any of the victims by anyone who came forward as an eye witness. But then, being that tall, Tumblety would no doubt have been extra careful to avoid being seen if he was really determined to kill two (or more) birds with one stone - adding to his collection of uteri at the same time as satisfying his hatred of prostitutes.
A womb without a view, one might say. 
Love,
Caz |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 162
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 2:16 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
This is good example of why logic is so difficult in cases like this. On the one hand, Tumblety is so distinctively tall that he should have been seen and remembered by witnesses if he were JTR. On the other hand, Tumblety, knowing this, would have been extra careful not to be seen. It's easy for any of us to defend most any theory because there are so many logical possibilities.
One rule of thumb that is useful to follow in a general way: generally the simplest explanation is the most likely.
Andy
|
H McGuire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 8:27 pm: | |
One (perhaps out of left field) footnote to some of the Tumblety/American Ripper speculations: in Gangs of New York (which I know isn't a scholarly work), author Herbert Asbury discusses the NY vs. London police professional rivalry a bit when he says NY police chief Thomas Byrnes boasted that JTR would have easily been caught in NYC. Soon after, a NY prostitute named Shakespeare was slashed to death, and waterfront rumors had it that JTR was responding to Byrnes' boast. Asbury printed sensational myth and rumors in his 1927 book, but still, here's a mention of a Ripper-like killing of a prostitute in New York just after the slayings in London. Asbury, though, thought the murderer (both JTR and Shakespeare's murderer) was a sailor. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 2:20 am: | |
dear boss i am new to the jack thr ripper chase but i do feel drt to be a real viable suspect seeing how the ripper took organs and tumblety had a collection organs how did he obtain them the womb was obviously the target and i am convinced the cid thought tumbltey was the killer |
Peter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 2:59 pm: | |
He is an excellent suspect.
I have done a lot of research on The "from hell" letter. My findings of that letter are are posted in that letters message board. It seems that all the pieces i put together point to a a man who knows something of the Irish language, intelligent and fits a certain 'sadist' profile.
Its noted in some of his history that he may have been part of the civil war, or at least proclaimed to be. Have you seen some of the medical kits from the civil war? seem to fit the weapon used in the killing. i have included a picture of a set of surgical equipment which was availiable in N.Y at the time Tumblety was there. I also looked up info on civil war sergions which is very interesting;
During the period just before the Civil War, a physician received minimal surgical training. Nearly all the older doctors served as apprentices in lieu of formal education. Even those who had attended one of the few medical schools were poorly trained.
The average medical student in the United States, on the other hand, trained for two years or less, received practically no clinical experience, and was given virtually no laboratory instruction. Harvard University, for instance, did not own a single stethoscope or microscope until after the war.
The Civil War doctor, Surgeons as they were called, ranged from the brave and brilliant to drunks and quacks. The uneven quality was the result of political influence in the appointment of some medical officers and wildly varying state-to-state standards in some cases. One state required no medical degree from prospective surgeons on grounds that "scholarship" was no "measure of practical ability", which may explain the former barbers and similarly qualified men occasionally commissioned as surgeons. The quacks deceived the public by their irresponsibility. The qualified doctors deprived the public by their excessive responsibility. They were so obsessed by quackery that they distrusted new innovations, even when they were based on scientific theory.
It would have been easy for him to join the army and gain some experience of surgeory.
One thing which is very apparent from the all of the eye witness accounts that he was well dressed andwearing some type of hat. If you look at the uniforms of the civil war surgeon, some discriptions fit the uniform. he was arrested for wearing a uniform that he wasnt suppossed to.
All in all he fits the bill.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 455
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 7:11 pm: | |
Hi Peter,
Interesting points and good arguments, although I believe Tumblety isn't that good a suspect candidate.
It is possible that the writer of the From Hell letter could show signs of Irish influence or origin, but he is by no means an intelligent bloke; I rather see it written by some very confused and morbid character. Sadist -- yes. Intelligent -- no! Although I do belive those criterias would match Jack the Ripper quite well, I belive noone really can state if the letter is authentic or not; we would have had access to the kidney to sort that out.
Regarding the Ripper's appearence and the witness accounts, I don't believe all of the witnesses described a well-dressed man; some said "shabby genteel" and some described him looking as a seaman with peaked cap (and we don't even know if any of them really saw the Ripper at all).
Secondly, I believe that Tumbelty didn't start to dress flamboyant til' much later after the Ripper murders, so his uniform is not that significant, but I see what you're getting at (the weapon etc.).
One thing that has been discussed is whether he wore that moustasches or not in London -- some of those who stress him as a suspect believe that those were fakes (he would be too recognizable in Whitechapel with such an appearence) and that he therefore could have disguised himself (with no moustaches) in order to blend in.
The reason for this very speculative suggestion is that the moustasches seem to bend in different directions on a picture that exists of him. I just want to state that ordinary moustasch wax, which is a very thick paste and after a minute or two hardens in contact with oxygen in the air, was commonly used in those days, and it is very easy to form into different shapes and to bend it in all kinds of directions --
I know because I use it myself.
So there really is no baring for the stories about Tumblety using a disguise -- not in any more sense than the other proposed suspects.
As far as I am concerned he is no more credible as a suspect than any other on the list. I also believe he was far too intelligent.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 7:55 am: | |
I stand corrected on the fact that i wrote all of the witnesses said that he was well dressed. What i meant to point out that a majority of the eye witnesses pointed out that he was wearing some type of hat. There would have been limited light in those days too. This is why, i think, the majority of the eye witnesses describe something similair but not exact.
The point that i guess i was really trying to get across, is that in some of the eye witness accounts the clothing could be compared to that of a military uniform. I will also point out that it was after 1860 that he was known or as it says on this website 'From there he travelled to Boston, where he began what would be a long-running trademark: he would wear a military outfit and ride a white steed, sometimes leading two greyhounds before him.'He would not were it as a disguise, but for personal reasons, or even if it were for a disguise, it would be because if he was questioned on the street later as to why he was carrying a surgeons kit he could at least by a little time to get away.
Have you read the my findings on the letter 'From Hell' in the letters section? It points out how it could all connect to the Mitre Square killing, and how this letter could have been writin by an intelligent man. the style of writing, with the connection of the place the murder took place in Mitre Square, could be hints to the killers identity. People who commit crimes like this usually like to taunt the authorities and often work closely with them.
Times have changed since then, and the killer, who ever it was, would not have to try very hard to trick authorities and find out about police procidures. The killer would not have to 'adapt'a great deal to avoid being caught, but the nature of the ritual did. Serial killers usually evolve as individuals in there murders.
The reason i find him more 'credible' suspect then most others are for these main reasons;
He is one of the few suspects with the experience to carry out these murders and the knowledge of how to use the tools needed.
He was really, a con man, someone who has a very Persuasive nack of coercing people.
He also has a criminal record which could have been his platform into these type of killings. it is very rare for a serial killer not to have committed other crimes.
This (taken from this web site);
Tumblety was then charged on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders on the 12th (suggested he was free to kill Kelly between the 7th and 12th). Tumblety was bailed on November 16th. A hearing was held on November 20th at the Old Bailey, and the trial postponed until December 10th. Tumblety then fled to France under the alias ‘Frank Townsend’ on the 24th, and from there took the steamer La Bretagne to New York City.
He fled the country after the last suspected ripper killing, as the police's top suspect. After all the other crimes that he has been charged for, by the sounds of it, he only flees when he is going to get caught. He could have been scared to though.
His hatred of woman, the attempted abortion of a prostitute, his apparent, neglectful parents all pointing to a good profile of a serial killer.
The letter 'From hell' fits in well with a sadistic profile. canabilism is often undertaken by the attacker.
It was done after the Mitre Square killing. The place alone could have meaning, in relation to the letter and Tumblety's parents were from an Irish back ground. Very few suspects were Irish or of Irish background with all the above criteria to go with it. Very few suspects have all the criteria needed to fit the ripper bill.
So in my mind he makes a very crediable suspect, more so then others. But it dosnt matter! cause we will probably never know!!
|
Joe
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 9:09 pm: | |
Glenn,
Notice how the author of the "from hell" letter spells "half" and “knife”
he spells them:
"half"
"knif"
I think it's pretty clear that an educated man or maybe intelligent man wrote this letter. What illiterate person would be able to know that there is an "L" in half and a "k" in knife?
Clearly, the author was disguising his intelligence.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 467
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 3:35 pm: | |
Hi Joe,
Yes, I know and I do think the author was trying to disguise something, but I'm not so sure it was intelligence. But I do agree that the spelling seems strange for an illiterate person. It is rather the choice of words that makes me wonder. I think the Lusk letter (whether it's authentic or not) show some disturbing signs you can't find in the "Dear Boss" letter, for example. The latter has a scornful and arrogant tone typical for intelligent hoax writers in cases like this, while the Luck letter is more confused and deranged, in my opinion. Why he spelled as he did is amystery to many of us, I think, although some has suggested that also that has dialectal reasons.
I really don't think anything is clear regarding the Lusk letter, it is indeed a hard nut to crack, I feel, and since we can't really be sure that it actually came from the killer, it really isn't that important -- the only way to succesfully investigate that would be to study the kidney, which, as we know, is impossible today.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 6:52 pm: | |
Hi, Peter:
You make it sound as if you think Tumblety actually performed abortions using a knife. He didn't. He used pills that are known as abortifacients to effect an abortion. This is what he was accused of when he was on trial in 1858 for performing an abortion in Quebec with the use of a drug.
Tumblety often made it clear that he was against the use of knives in medicine. Among the testimonies to the good work he supposedly did and that he published in the press is the testimony of a Mr. King of Washington, D.C. In a newspaper ad of 1862, King is cited as a man from whom Tumblety removed "a large tumor of a cancerous nature . . . from his head without resorting to the barbarous practice of cutting with a knife."
While Tumblety lived in Washington in the 1860’s he is said to have possessed a collection of women’s uteruses in jars. However, it is likely that, as with other shady practitioners, he actually bought this collection as "window dressing" for his trade, rather than that he cut them out himself.
If Tumblety posed as a military surgeon in the 1860's, which he evidently did, it was to promote his medical practice and his pretense of having been taken seriously as a medical man, and this should not be taken as proof that he actually was a military surgeon and used a knife in surgery. The wearing of a military uniform at this time was likewise self-publicity.
This is not necessarily to say that Dr. Tumblety did not know how to use a knife or that he was not Jack the Ripper, just that the evidence about his work as a quack doctor does not appear to bear out him using a knife in that practice.
All the best
Chris George |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 474
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 8:12 pm: | |
Hi Peter,
"in some of the eye witness accounts the clothing could be compared to that of a military uniform."
WHAT??? I may have missed that one, but I acually never read such an account. Where in the witness statements can we find indications of a military uniform (except from the sailors regarding Martha Tabram)?
"He would not were it as a disguise, but for personal reasons, or even if it were for a disguise, it would be because if he was questioned on the street later as to why he was carrying a surgeons kit he could at least by a little time to get away."
This is why I made a point about the use of a disguise: if someone in such clothing would appear in East End - and especially during the time of the Ripper murders - he wouldn't stand a chance, and it certainly wouldn't be intelligent! Anyone looking suspicious were brought in to the police and if he wore such a uniform he would stand out too much from the crowd and wouldn't be able to sneak away unseen. That is why I brought up the disguise matter (which many who favour Tumblety as a suspect has used as an argument, by the way).
"People who commit crimes like this usually like to taunt the authorities and often work closely with them."
I'm sorry, Peter, but not all of them. There are actually those - which a different mental status - who don't want to indulge themselves in the investigation, in contrast to those with more psychopatic tendensies who likes the attention - I assume that you think Jack the Ripper belong to the latter category (the smart psychopath), but I don't, so here we're stuck with a matter of opinion.
I would prefer not to make too much fuzz about the Lusk letter or any Ripper letter at all. If one of them should be genuine, I believe it would be that one, but that can never be proven.
Now to your individual points:
-- "He is one of the few suspects with the experience to carry out these murders and the knowledge of how to use the tools needed."
I think there are a lot of the others as well that has been tributed some sort of medical knowledge; Tumblety is by no means unique regarding that, although I believe that is one of the better scoring points for his candidacy (if these attributes really are true regarding Tumblety).
-- "He was really, a con man, someone who has a very Persuasive nack of coercing people."
I don't think Jack the Ripper was a con man, with persuasive talents; considering the circumstances the women lived in that wasn't necessary -- they led the killer themselves to secluded places. I don't think a con man fits the Ripper's profile.
-- "He also has a criminal record which could have been his platform into these type of killings. it is very rare for a serial killer not to have committed other crimes."
True. I can give you that much.
-- "His hatred of woman, the attempted abortion of a prostitute, his apparent, neglectful parents all pointing to a good profile of a serial killer."
Again true. But not much of that is really proven. The rumours, for example, about his collection of jars containing uteruses is based on a second-hand source and noone really know if they actually existed. It could just as well be a myth.
-- "He fled the country after the last suspected ripper killing, as the police's top suspect."
This, I feel, is the strongest argument for his candidacy as being the Ripper, especially as the police evidently showed a great interest in him. However, I don't think that is enough to claim that he was Jack the Ripper, it just makes him a possible suspect among others. They were seriously interested in others as well.
The rest -- the connection to Mitre Square and the cannibalism -- I feel to be just speculations.
But I agree that he is an interesting character nevertheless. But Jack the Ripper -- questionable.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Timsta
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 6:51 pm: | |
I've often wondered about the misspellings in the Lusk letter. My own (unsubstantiated) opinion is that the author probably had a Board School education or similar. I would however propose the following experiment.
Surely some of our posters are involved in education at, say, the 3rd-8th grade level. What say we get some kids around that age to write down the words 'knife', 'while', 'kidney' etc. and see what the most common misspellings are?
Regards
Timsta |
Peter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 4:50 am: | |
does no one look at my postings in the letter 'from hell' section?!!! the words in the letter are not misspelt!!! In Ireland, these words have actual meanings!!! To be intelligent those days, is no where near the level of intelligence of the average person these days. The words are not misspelt.
When i said con man, it means that he is very much able to persuade people through lying. Tumblety, and the otherities would never have seen his work as being a con. As medication was a very unexplored avenue at the time. In other words, he is no stranger to living two seperate lives. Antibiotics were barely known if not known. I think that it is very hard to try and even speculate, as the way we think today, killers included, have changed from then. Profiles may very alot, and so has our way of thinking and education.
And by the way, not alot of the suspects are as 'interesting' as tumblety.... and everyone is questionable!!!!
When you quote me Glenn, make sure you include it in context. The part about the medical experience, if you continue reading i also said that what puts him apart from other suspects with medical experience the rest of his individual character, or profile. None of the other suspects with medical experience have as an extensive profile similar to that of a text book serial killer as Tumbletly.
In relation to your 'I'm sorry, Peter, but not all of them.' The quote you used actually says 'usually', exmp; People who commit crimes like this usually like to taunt the authorities and often work closely with them." My understanding of usually, does not mean that it is a rule!!
A serial killer profile does not always, or even at all relate to the weapon used. So if i made it sound like the prostitute was aborted with a knife it was mistaken.
In relation to the uniform, yes the sailor, but also the description of the clothes;
- 'wearing a morning suit and a billycock hat.'
- 'Small, black coat, dark trousers, middle aged, round cap with a small sailor-like peak.'
- Imperticular, the buttons noted here; 'long black coat buttoned up, soft felt hawker hat',
- 'long black diagonal coat which reached almost to his heels.' this fits the description of an army coat.
Do you disagree that alot of the descriptions of the clothing is similar and that quite alot are similar to an army uniform?
His hatred of woman, was noticed by Colonel Dunham in his testamony.
So, when you read my postings, it would be good if you could read betweeen the lines so i dont have to point everything out in my hypothosis. It is meant for 'brain food' Glenn from sweden.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 507
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 10:12 pm: | |
Hi Peter,
Don't get frustrated. Sometimes one is a bit short of time, I'm afraid, which unfortunately can result in some sloppiness. But there are a lot of posts to go through here, and I also have a work to take care of and sometimes I get tired and careless. It's not an excuse, just a fact to consider. I am not trying to bend your words or misinterpret you on purpose, believe me. But I also think you misunderstand me occasioanlly as well.
Yes, I have read your posts regarding the Lusk letter and I think your conclusions there are quite valid and interesting. And I think there is a possibility that it is actually Irish and not misspellings, I can't argue with that and I don't know either way since I'm not competent to take stands for or against. But as I said; the only way to find out if the Lusk letter is authentic is to examine the kidney that came with it. That is impossible, so that leaves us with just speculations regarding the letter either way.
"And by the way, not alot of the suspects are as 'interesting' as tumblety.... and everyone is questionable!!!!"
Yes, but some are more questionable than others, and although Tumblety is interesting (and maybe possible) he's not credible enough in my view. But as I said, this is merely a matter of opinion, you also must allow me to disagree with you.
"...if you continue reading i also said that what puts him apart from other suspects with medical experience the rest of his individual character, or profile. None of the other suspects with medical experience have as an extensive profile similar to that of a text book serial killer as Tumbletly"
I have really tried to find such a passage in your posts, Peter, but I really can't find it. What in Earth do you mean? I may have missed it, but I am not quite sure I follow you nevertheless. There aren't that many serious suspects that have medical knowledge; I believe that Tumblety is a better "medical" serial killer candidate than Dr Gull, but I don't think he's not that much better than Francis Thompson or Neill Cream (even though I believe them all to be lousy Ripper suspects) when it comes to the serial killer profile. What makes Tumblety interesting is his hatred of women, the fact that he disappeared during the same time the murders stopped and that the police were interested in hem. Naturally also the fact that he had medical knowledge, but I am not so sure Jack the Ripper necessarily had medical knowledge - maybe a slight anatomical knowledge, but that doesen't have to imply a doctor as a main suspect.
"In relation to your 'I'm sorry, Peter, but not all of them.' The quote you used actually says 'usually', exmp; People who commit crimes like this usually like to taunt the authorities and often work closely with them." My understanding of usually, does not mean that it is a rule!!"
When you say "usually" I interpret that as you mean that this indicates a majority. And that could be true, but I think you misunderstand me, Peter. I didn't want to challenge that. I just wanted to point out the other alternative, since you seemed to disregard it. Far too many people have taken for granted through the years that serial killers like to toy with the police (like the Zodiac Killer etc.) and that this applies to Jack the Ripper as well. We know that this group is large, but I don't want to rule out the more disorganized, introvert personality type; I believe that this is a more probable description of the Ripper and therefore I find the letters uninteresting, especially as they are considered being hoaxes anyway.
I assume your statement regarding abortion was directed to Chris, so I won't get into that.
When it comes to the uniform:
You were speaking about this in the context of the civil war surgeon uniforms. If you didn't mean that, you have to be a bit clearer - I am no mind reader. Read between the lines, yes, but there is a limit to everything...
Now, I know a lot about 19th century clothes, and those features you describe doesen't at all have to indicate military uniforms. And more importantly, if they were, I believe the witnesses would have made that connection, but no parallells to a military unifrom whatsoever appears in their statements. If the clothes were close enough to a military uniform, then this should have been the witnesses over-all impression. Since this is not the case, and the clothes you refer to individually doesen't indicate it strong enough, we can't draw such a conclusion out of the blue. And once again, how do we know that any of the witnesses really saw Jack the Ripper? And if some of them did, which description is correct?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 12:52 am: | |
Glenn, You need to take a minute..... taken. Good.
"In relation to your 'I'm sorry, Peter, but not all of them.' The quote you used actually says 'usually', exmp; People who commit crimes like this usually like to taunt the authorities and often work closely with them." My understanding of usually, does not mean that it is a rule!!"
When you say "usually" I interpret that as you mean that this indicates a majority. And that could be true, but I think you misunderstand me, Peter. I didn't want to challenge that. I just wanted to point out the other alternative, since you seemed to disregard it. Far too many people have taken for granted through the years that serial killers like to toy with the police (like the Zodiac Killer etc.) and that this applies to Jack the Ripper as well. We know that this group is large, but I don't want to rule out the more disorganized, introvert personality type; I believe that this is a more probable description of the Ripper and therefore I find the letters uninteresting, especially as they are considered being hoaxes anyway.
How can i get you wrong when you say; 'I'm sorry, Peter, but not all of them.' Majority... and all. mmmmmm.
here are some exerts from F.B.I profiling magazines and web sites:
ORGANIZED OFFENDERS ¹
The organized offender is usually above average in intelligence. He is methodical and cunning. His crime is well thought out and carefully planned. He is likely to own a car, which is in good condition. The crime is usually committed out of his area of residence or work. He is mobile and travels many more miles than the average person. Fantasy and ritual are important to the Organized type personality. He selects a victim, which he considers the "right" type, someone he can control (either through manipulation or strength), usually a stranger. Most of his victims will share some common traits.
He is considered socially adept. He uses his verbal skills to manipulate his victims and gain control over them until he has them within his "comfort zone." He is fully cognizant of the criminality of his act and takes pride in his ability to thwart the police investigation. He is likely to follow news reports of the event and will oftentimes take a "souvenir" from his victim as a reminder, which is sometimes used to relive the event or continue with the fantasy. (The souvenir is referred to as a "trophy" when describing this particular action by the organized offender.)
He is excited by the cruelty of the act and may engage in torturing the victim. Sexual control of the victim plays an important part in this scenario. He avoids leaving evidence behind and usually brings his own weapon. He is aware of police procedures. The body is often removed from the crime scene. He may do this to "taunt" the police or to prevent its discovery by transporting it to a location where it will be well hidden.
The Deviant oriented assault or Lust murder is usually committed by someone who is defined as a lust murderer. Lust Murders are premeditated in the obsessive fantasies of the offender.
The lust murderer is oriented towards deviant and sexually sadistic assault and is distinguished from other sex related homicide offenders by his involvement in mutilation of the victim. Lust murderers can be organized or disorganized. According to studies conducted by the FBI, most of these offenders are disorganized and do not engage in penis penetration of the victim. Instead, they may masturbate upon their victims and engage in post mortem mutilation. There may be displacement of the breasts of females (Defeminization), post mortem attack of the genitalia of males and females, evisceration, the insertion of objects into the body cavities of victims and sometimes anthropophagy, which is the consumption of human flesh and blood.
The Ripper fits these discriptions. If the letter 'From Hell' is real, then the eating of the liver is quite possible, and the tauting. I have writin more about the "from hell' letter in that post section. all of this seems to fit.
This was taken from 'letter from an ex-convict' posting that i did.
"...if you continue reading i also said that what puts him apart from other suspects with medical experience the rest of his individual character, or profile. None of the other suspects with medical experience have as an extensive profile similar to that of a text book serial killer as Tumbletly"
I have really tried to find such a passage in your posts, Peter, but I really can't find it. What in Earth do you mean? I may have missed it, but I am not quite sure I follow you nevertheless. There aren't that many serious suspects that have medical knowledge; I believe that Tumblety is a better "medical" serial killer candidate than Dr Gull, but I don't think he's not that much better than Francis Thompson or Neill Cream (even though I believe them all to be lousy Ripper suspects) when it comes to the serial killer profile. What makes Tumblety interesting is his hatred of women, the fact that he disappeared during the same time the murders stopped and that the police were interested in hem. Naturally also the fact that he had medical knowledge, but I am not so sure Jack the Ripper necessarily had medical knowledge - maybe a slight anatomical knowledge, but that doesen't have to imply a doctor as a main suspect.
True, you arnt a mind reader! Its what i was thinking! I thought i wrote it. but the point still stands, none of the other suspects fits the bill. But you can't tell me that who ever did the ripper murders was not someone educated in even the slightest of anatomy. Where in those days would you get that saught of training if you wernt a doctor? Alot of people where illiterate!!! MOst could not even vote! Are you picking up what i am putting down?
You still havent told me why you said that he didnt wear his uniform until long after the murders. when he did. I never get apologies from you!! hehe.
And once again, how do we know that any of the witnesses really saw Jack the Ripper? And if some of them did, which description is correct?
now this is just getting silly.... Sure, maybe not all of them sore him, but the majority are similar descriptions of a certain type of dress. all seen at certain murder locations. coincedence? maybe. but we could say that about all the murders too, which would make this whole thing pointless.
You may need to brush up your knowledge on military uniforms. you can tell that the some of the descriptions can be related to military and one even went as far to relate it too!!
What do you think the light was like back then? Pretty dim. It would be hard for anyone to get a clear view of anyone from a distence, but you could point out certain aspects of clothing, to pin point it in as a uniform would be hard.
All the best back.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 514
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 8:44 pm: | |
Hi Peter,
Yes, I know about the FBI:s profiling methods and I find them very interesting and fruitful (although it's not an exact science), but you checked the wrong category!!! I strongly believe (and so does John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood from FBI:s profiling unit as well) that Jack the Ripper is a typical example of a DISORGANIZED killer, maybe a paranoid schizofrenic - absolutely not a cunning, intelligent psychopath. I'd love to get into that discussion and explain why more thoroughly, but I have already done so a number of times on other threads here, but I'll probably get back to that subject in the near future. Until then I can recommend Douglas' and Olshakers' book "The Cases that Haunts Us", which contains a very interesting profile on Mr. Ripper.
The letters were written by someone with an intelligence above average - everything in the Ripper's "work" (although we can't be absolutely certain) indicates the opposite.
As I said, I see no point in getting into a discussion about the "From Hell" letter or any of the others. IF there is one letter I believe could be genuine, it is the Lusk letter. But that is as far as I am prepared to go. We have no evidence or even indications saying either way.
"You still havent told me why you said that he didnt wear his uniform until long after the murders."
Well, how do you know that he did? I have read somewhere - although I or "my" source could naturally be mistaken - that he didn't start dressing "flamboyant" until after he fled abroad. But as I said, if I'm misinformed here, I'll reconsider.
Anyway, you're missing the point. Anybody appearing in Whitechapel during the Ripper scare in such clothes, would never make it. The women were during this time quite suspicious against men looking out of the ordinary. The Ripper managed to slip away because he a) knew the area extremely well, and b) because he didn't stand out from the crowd and managed to blend in. Tumblety showing up in that costume in East End would be an easy target for the police as well as for the other inhabitants. And for the record, he would probably have been mugged and a victim of robbery before he even knew what hit him!
Well, edjucated in anatomy... I think a butcher or someone who once worked in a hospital could be able to do it. The reports from the doctors' examining the Ripper victims, is quite staggering and ambivalent on the point regarding the Ripper's medical knowledge. It is a falacy to automatically assume that he was a medical doctor, and I think we have the Ripper myth and Hollywood to blame for that. One doctor said, regarding the signature on Kate Eddowes (the ripping), that a medical doctor wouldn't do such a sloppy job. The fact is, Peter, that this is an area which still is under debate and shouldn't be taken as a stated fact. A butcher, a porter, a hospital employee - yes. But a doctor, he was most certainly not. To perform this actions you only need to know where everything is, but you didn't need to be a scolar or have an edjucation to gain that. But I do believe that the Ripper had a strange curiousity for the human body, and especially the female one...
Regarding the witness descriptions and the type of dress. No, it's not silly, Peter. You can't draw such conclusions just because you want him to wear a military uniform. The characteristics you pointed out in your last message, could fit a lot of other men's clothing as well, not necessarily a military uniform (I am not counting the sailors in conncetion with Tabram here, since we don't even know if she WAS a Ripper victim). I know that the light was dim, Peter; that's one reason why I take most of the witmess descriptions with a pinch of salt. And no, we CAN'T be certain that any of the men seen in connection with the women were the Ripper, we can only speculate. The fact that some of the descriptions fit each other, doesen't have to mean consequentely that they are the same man. There were some details that differed on men's clothing at the time, but they didn't differ that much. Long over-coats, jackets in various forms, bonjour and different kinds of hats. What testimony do you refer to that relates to a military uniform, apart from those in the Tabram case? Scwartz' testimony regarding the Stride murder said something about a sailor's cap, but he meant a seaman, not a military sailor. Take a minute to think about it, Peter: if you were the Ripper, how would you dress - in the poor streets of East End? I'll give you a tip: if you want to stress Tumblety as a Ripper suspect, I suggest you use the disguise argument (like most others have done) instead of clinging to military uniforms. It still doesen't fit the Ripper profile, but it makes more sense, nevertheless...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Erin Sigler
Police Constable
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 10
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 12:09 am: | |
Glenn, I thought I might add something here, if you don't mind. Not only would a doctor not do such a shoddy job as the guy who mutilated Kate Eddowes, he would have been able to take Annie Chapman's head off. The evidence indicates that the Ripper attempted to do this, and failed. I realize that it was dark and he had to work quickly, but a second-year medical student would know how to separate a head from a body; it's really not that difficult if you know where to cut and you're using the proper tools. Danny Rolling, the so-called "Gainesville Ripper," managed to decapitate one of his victims, and he certainly wasn't a doctor. I'm not even sure he was even an experienced hunter, just an outdoorsman.
Yes, taking a kidney out from the front is difficult, but a hunter or a butcher would have known where to find it. Frankly, from the looks of the other murders, it appear to me that he might have just been rummaging around in the bodies and taking whatever appealed to him. Unless you think he really wanted two-thirds of a bladder, that is!
I consider the Ripper to exhibit a "mixed" presentation. That is to say, there are some elements of an organized killer, and an equal number of disorganized traits. The leaving of the bodies at the scene, the extensive and apparently purposeless mutilations, the blitz-style attacks--these point to someone who, in my opinion (one shared by John Douglas, I might add), is not of sound mind. Truly organized serial killers, although they be sociopaths, are generally not considered legally insane, whereas those at the other end of the spectrum, like Ed Gein, are clearly mentally unstable. The fact that the Ripper was able to elude the police should not be taken as indication that he was particularly bright; in some cases, it appears that he was just plain lucky.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 516
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 11:27 am: | |
Hi Erin,
I agree with you. I have certainly not a clue on how easy it is to decapitate someone, but the fact reamins that he never managed to do it - and since most of the vicims' heads were nearly severed from their necks, I think we can possibly assume that that was one of his purposes. The mutilations appear to be more "sloppy" and violently performed in Kate Eddoes' case than in the previous ones. A great deal of her organs were destroyed and I also get the impression that he just had been "rummaging around in the bodies and taking whatever appealed to him", although this tendency also can be seen in Annie Chapman's case. There doesen't seem to be a clear pattern as far as the taking of the organs is concerned, if we are to look at these in a symbolic way. On Chapman, the womb and parts of the bladder, vagina and belly were missing; on Eddowes it was the left kidney; on Mary Anne Kelly (if we choose to include her among the canonical victims) it was the heart. I think this discrepance makes the signature of the murders a bit hard to interpret, but I think he desexualized the women by tearing them up and throwing out their intestines and the fact that it seems to be quite randomly done points more to a disorganized offender; I believe an edjucated psychopath would have done a neater job - they mostly consider their deeds to be important "works of art" - but of course these are just merely assumptions.
Another thing that also points in favour of a disorganized killer is the high risk momentum in conncetion with killings, although occuring late at night, nevertheless performed in public places or close to inhabitated buildings, and in the Mitre Square case he only had 6 or 8 minutes at his disposal to do the act - between the beats of the PC:s. That is an unnecessary risk to take, and I believe an organized killer would engage himself in more careful planning and also like to spend some time with and get to know his victims in order to control them. The "blitz" attack of the Ripper indicates to me (and to Douglas as well) that we're dealing with someone who wants to get it over with quickly and who is unsure of himself - AND acts on impulse.
Yes, Erin, there is a possibility that he could be a mixture of the two categories (that is not that uncommon, so that can't be ruled out), but I don't see that many organized features in his actions and personality, unless he showed some signs of cunning and persuasion in his contacts with the women (we have no evidence of this, though, and I believe he would be too anti-social and insecure in female company to manage this) and as you yourself say: "The fact that the Ripper was able to elude the police should not be taken as indication that he was particularly bright; in some cases, it appears that he was just plain lucky."
I also want to add, regarding my post above, that the only witnesses that most likely saw the Ripper, would be Elizabeth Long on Hanbury Street (in connection with Chapman's murder) -"long coat, deer stalker hat" - and POSSIBLY Lawende in connection with Kate Eddowes. The others I think are very uncertain.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1029
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 11:54 am: | |
Hi Erin, Glenn
Well, if he was trying decapitation, then I suppose this would rule out all the main witnesses, since none of them report a man carrying a bag or sack - a head isn't something that will just slip into a pocket. The only way to save one of the main witnesses as being a JTR witness, would be if he simply intended to leave the head at the site, or was so far gone that he intended to walk along the streets carrying it.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 518
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 12:19 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I don't believe he would have any intention of taking the heads with him. I don't see why he should, it would probably be enough to "just" cut off the head; the fact that the heads were almost totally severed from the neck indicates to me some sort of attempt on decaptivating, otherwise he could just have satisfied himself with cutting their throats in order for them to bleed to death.
The heads I don't believe he would have taken with him, since he don't want to look at the women as individuals or persons. The disfigurement of Eddowes' face tells me that he wanted to dehumanise them and with the mutilation he aimed to desexualise them. The important "items" to grab as "souvernirs" would be those who origin form the sexually important act - the mutilation, and that's what he did. At least, that's how I see it.
But it's indeed a morbid picture you paint, Robert; carrying a head...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 12
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 1:15 pm: | |
This is a bit off-topic, but my friend, the woman who worked in the psych hospital, has mentioned that more than one patient had been seen carrying a decapitated head around--one in a bowling bag, another out in the open!  |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
