| Author |
Message |
    
P.J.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 9:37 pm: | 
|
He was old, how could he have been Jack the Ripper? |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 7:15 am: |
|
Harold Shipman murdered over 200 over a 23 year period! He was in his late 50's when he was caught and still bang at it.
I hope 49 is not that old! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 686
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 5:49 am: |
|
Hi P.J,
I agree it's most unusual for serial killers to start murdering in middle age.
Even Shipman would have been in his thirties at most when he first took life. But he did have a drug habit, which I believe became apparent in his twenties.
These days one thinks of most drug addicts starting young too, so I have no idea how radically a person's behaviour could alter as a result of becoming addicted to substances much later in life.
I don't know what studies, if any, have been made into such people.
I take it Tumblety's not on your 'possible' list then?
Love,
Caz |
Ryan P
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:54 am: |
|
Age has got nothing to do with it!
If he was about seventy i wouldn't say anything, it's not as if you can't pick up a knife when you turn 40. Saying that James was to old to be JTR is absolutely crazy!
James was on arsnic anyway. I don't know if anyone looks at satistics or anything, but over 60% of seriel killers are on drugs, or have been on drugs.
I personally think that saying James was to old, is unbelievably obserd. I can't believe this is the subject of a message bourd. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Ryan,
I try and stay away from simple pedantry, but you might want to run your spell-check a bit before posting.
I don't think James was too old to be Jack. But of course there is no more real evidence against him in this case than there is against any other forty year old living in England in 1888. Or any 30 year old or 20 year old, etc.
As for drug use and serial killers, remember your logic. Yes, many serial killers might use drugs. That does not however imply that those who use drugs are likely to be serial killers.
At least I hope not, or I'm in serious trouble. 
One toke over the line,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1020
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:59 am: |
|
James was fifty in 1888.
I don't know when he was introduced to R. Snic though.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:03 am: |
|
Yes, Caz, and therefore I guess I should have added "50 year old" to my list of people against whom there is no real evidence in this case.
Good point,
--John
|
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 9:06 pm: |
|
Donato Bilancia of Italy was 41 when he started.
Chikatilo, according to Crimelibrary, committed his first murder by 1978 which would put him at 42.
That's the result of a two hour search for European serial killers over 40. Pretty good hunch, huh? |
Mark
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 10:49 am: |
|
You want late 40s? How about mid 40s.
Donato Bilancia wasn't 41. He was 45?
The Terror of Hanover started in 1924. Fritz Haarmaann was 45.
If you want late 40s, I can give you the male Black Widow, Henri Landru, 47.
The interesting thing here is that American serial killers never wait until they're 40 unless they've been in jail for 10-20. But none of these Euro guys was in jail for more than 4 or 5 years I believe.
Gary take note. This is one thing about age that is invariable. |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 22
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 9:43 am: |
|
In 1888 50 was then as 90 is today. If you think of the double murder, Jack would have to have run pretty fast from Liz Stride to get to Mitre Square in time for Cathy Eddowes. A 50 year old bloke with a drug habit would be weazing his way around the streets which would have certainly gone unnoticed by the police & witnesses- unless of course his ploy was to lie down in the darkness and pretend he was asleep in all the commotion....
Busy Beaver  |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 11:40 am: |
|
Hi Busy,
I take it you don't know much about the potential strengthening effects of arsenic eating then, if ever they were combined with the adrenaline rush of a mutilating serial killer in mid-flow? 
Perhaps you need to ask the Barretts? Or perhaps not.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Busy,
Maybe he was all hopped up on goofballs.
--John (dropping an MST3K joke into this silliness)
|
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 24
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 4:58 pm: |
|
My point is James Maybrick was not the Ripper. End of story.
Busy Beaver  |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1113
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 4:42 am: |
|
Sorry, Busy.
I thought your point was that a killer who was
high on arsenic and adrenaline would be 'weasing' his way round the streets of London and therefore quite incapable of throttling and/or knifing the likes of a run-down old Dorset Street prostitute.
Thank you for pointing out what your real point was. I may remind you of it one day.
Love,
Caz
X |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 28
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 5:09 am: |
|
I feel we might have to wait until 2030, to find out the real killer. But I'm prepared to wait...
Busy Beaver |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 6:11 am: |
|
Busy,
You're in the right place.
This is Diary World, where waiting is a way of life.
Of course, there are reasons why that is.
All the best,
--John |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 11:09 am: |
|
This is Diary World? Oh, I better go back to Letters and Correspondence World. Less pages.
One or two pages at most's for me if I'm going to do any document assessment. The Diary is what--63 or 66 pages? Might as well do all 66 books of the Bible! The idea of it makes me as tired as an old Gull running from Berner to Mitre Square!
Maybe I should chew on some of that pressure-treated wood out in the back.
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 9:57 pm: |
|
MF,
If you have a copy of the archive CD, you'll see that a careful analysis of all the pages, indeed all the lines of the diary was done some time back, showing over and over again the many ways that this text reveals itself to be an ahistorical and crafted document rather than the chronicle of a lived life.
But yes, if you are not up for waiting (until death), don't hang around here in Diary World. Many things are promised, but almost nothing ever happens. Some of us know why that is. We've gotten used to it by now. But it can be frustrating for strangers.
Enjoy your chomping,
--John |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 8:17 pm: |
|
John Haigh 40
John Christie 44
Do I detect a slight case of American ethnocentricity with the general 25-35 SK age range? |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 2:39 am: |
|
Albert Fish 40
Oh well, I guess even Americans would have produced older serial killers in the past. This was 1910.
|
K. Graham
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
I would like to make a releveant point regading JM's age. I think the point of this argument has been missed completely. I am not sure why this has not been discussed , or as far as I can see.
JAMES MAYBRICK WAS 20 YEARS OLDER THAN ALL OF THE EYEWITNESS REPORTS. They all put a man 28 to 35 years of age. This gap is too large to ignore. Especially when we consider this:
1. Shwarts see suspect in action with Stride - age 30yrs.
2. Lawnde sees suspect 9 minutes bfore Eddow's death( must be ripper) - aged 30yrs.
THIS BLOWS MAYBRICK AWAY FOR THE DOUBLE EVENT MURDERS. If he was Jack , he coulnt have killed them two. Welcome discussion. Thanks. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
" I am not sure why this has not been discussed , or as far as I can see.
JAMES MAYBRICK WAS 20 YEARS OLDER THAN ALL OF THE EYEWITNESS REPORTS. They all put a man 28 to 35 years of age."
It's not discussed because to my knowledge, none of the denizens of Diary World believe Maybrick to have been the Ripper. It's a non-starter. The 'best' one could do is argue that he hasn't been cleared, which would be true of virtually all of the Suspects.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
