A quick question regarding serial killers in general.

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

A quick question regarding serial killers in general.

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous: A quick question regarding serial killers in general.

	SUBTOPIC	MSGS	Last Updated
	Archive through 25 July 2002	40	07/28/2002 08:25pm

Author: Divia deBrevier Friday, 26 July 2002 - 01:19 am
Dear Diana: Thanks for directing the thread to that book. I would be very interested in reading it. You know, sometimes when I delve into the disturbed mind, it depresses me too. Why do I do it? I think I missed my calling.... Dear Jon: Cheers, mate! I'll be looking into that book! Dear Jean-Patrick: No, I'm not certain that she doesn't fall into that "born victims" category. Apparently she suffered from abuse as well (Garry Ross, when you get back from checking out London would you let me know where that info came from? smooch). Though she was no longer in that abusive relationship, it takes a lot of effort for someone to pull out of the cycle. In fact, if she had not been killed she most likely would have ended up in another abusive relationship (The average domestic violence victim will leave and enter an abusive relationship approximately seven times before successfully breaking the cycle). Trial run, eh? I don't know. Anything is possible. It just doesn't "feel" like it to me. Warm regards, Divia
Author: Monty Friday, 26 July 2002 - 08:59 am
Scott, Sorry for being premature. I must confess that when you brought up the Bradford thing it has stuck in my head and hasnt really left it. Out of interest, there is a chap on these boards by the name of Graham Jay who actually works near the murder sites. Im sure he wont mind me telling you this (I apologise if you do Graham) but he has offered to do any leg work if he can fit it in. Im sure he will be glad to serve you. And if there is anything I can serve you with let me know. Keep us informed if you can, Im really interest in this connection. Take care Scott, Nise Monty
Author: Scott E. Medine Friday, 26 July 2002 - 11:20 am
Monty, If either you or Graham could talk with the reporter, in reference to the mysterious letter, I would appreciate it. I don�t have his name with me at the moment, I will have to get it to you later. Because of time differences, telephone communication would be rather inconvenient. I ran his name through several databases for e-mail and got back 200 hits. I ran his name through a data base in hopes of turning up his address and I got back 1500 people in England with the same name and 212 were in the Bradford area. If either of you can do this then I would be willing to re-imburse for your expenses and pay you for your time. I�ll also let you know when I will be in London again and we�ll get together and knock back a few pints. Peace, Scott
Author: Monty Saturday, 27 July 2002 - 08:02 am
Scott, No worries. Just send me whatever details you have to my mail and I shall do my best. On one condition...no reimbursement ! You just buy the pint. Monty Ps The more info the better...but I guess you know that. Take it easy.
Author: Howard Brown Saturday, 27 July 2002 - 11:14 pm
If the Ripper wanted only to take the internal organs from Nicholls,Eddowes and Chapman,and he was as Scott Medine aptly stated,organized( meaning fairly intelligent,at least),then all of the psychobabble about him being abused( who wasn't?) and wanting to open up a little can of ass-whoop on someone( who hasn't?)in return, is irrelevant. The born victim theory,where a SK can "pick" his victims, seems likewise irrelevant. In Whitechapel,the general populace were almost ALL "born victims".....Besides,the victims were all hookers. They LOOK for Sugar Daddy,who in this case was their downfall... Its no wonder that prostitutes are the feeding ground for SK's...and in the East End,according to one source,there were 80,000 of 'em to pick from........Besides,if Dr.Tumbelty was JtR( hypothetically),his sexuality and lack of interest in later life for women( he was married...to a hooker)would provide the reason for the lack of semen at the sites....JtR had it fairly easy in his selection( sure didn't stop the whores from hitting the streets,just like the Green River Killer case and many others).The "born victim" theory is much like the "born addict"( genetic predisposition )conclusion. Both seem to be proven after the fact. Despite the dangers after the first Ripper murder,innumerable women still plied their wares to strangers( maybe "born victims" are really "born stupid risktakers in the face of death)in addition to the poor women murdered...Its a FACT that Ted Bundy didn't look for the born victim type.He looked for long brown haired chicks......just like Jeff Dahmer preferred non-White males.....just like Gacy liked teenage boys (many of whom could kick his ass from here to Brooklyn,had they not been garroted after that "handcuff trick")......To me,most serial killers and I could be wrong,seek someone who fits the bill of his/her original abuser. I hold the politically incorrect opinion( here in phoney"have a nice day !" America,that most Caucasian women/girls who date out of race,do so to get back at "daddy"....Likewise,there doesn't seem to be a lotta love lost on Mommy for many of our SK's,who happen,of course ,to be male...maybe that was more of a motive in the Eddowes/Nicholls/Chapman butcherings.
Author: Divia deBrevier Sunday, 28 July 2002 - 01:18 am
Dear Howard: The "psychobabble" may be irrelevant; it just kind of tied into profiling, the mind of the serial killer, what he/she thinks about conscious or unconsciously, etc. But let me ask you this: 1. What was the deciding factor on which girl with long brown hair was selected by Bundy? Eighty-five percent of the world's population is made up of brunettes. Lots of females wear their hair long. He looked for those which he could overpower, that he had the best opportunity to abduct, and which was more likely to fall for his method of lure. He probably wasn't looking specifically for a "born victim", but a "most likely victim". I'm not saying that all the girls he killed were victims of abuse, I'm saying that they were naive enough to fall into his trap. This makes them more likely to be a victim than someone that is wary of strangers, no matter how charming or helpless that stranger might seem. 2. How did you interpret the so-called "born victim theory"? If you read my post about the "born victim" look, that is what it is. A look. It is something on a more subconscious level. It is the way a woman carries herself, usually somewhat skittish, shy, etc. If you view women that are abuse victims, you'll see what I mean. I never said that the Ripper was out looking for victims of domestic abuse. I said that I think that it was a deciding factor because it made them easier prey. At least, a possibility. My interest in the Ripper is more about the psychology of the killer mind. I want to understand what drives such a mind to process these thoughts and carry them out. But, as you point out, it is irrelevant so I shan't bring it up again. Regards, Divia
Author: Howard Brown Sunday, 28 July 2002 - 08:04 am
Don't let my post discourage you from saying what you feel. It wasn't personally directed at you whatsoever. Regarding your response.85 percent of the world's female populace are brunettes.....Not in America and not in the gene pool he was fishing in. He looked for women he could overpower....if they were,they were brunettes FIRST( there certainly must be wavy haired brunettes who would have willingly gone off with Bundy) and then women who were not necessarily naive,but willing to help him when he faked the broken arm and other ploys NOT so much seeking "weak" women,but compliant( a difference). Further, people in the West( Oregon,Washington..) seem more obliging than we in the slightly more street smart East.Again,as in the JtR scenario,this made things a little easier for Bundy. I don't think serial killers sit and scan the playing field. I believe they use what works with that particular person....regarding the "born victim theory"..i have known many women( married or living with some yo-yo) who on the surface are healthy physically and mentally,who tolerated abuse( and some probably still do ). In fact,a certain amount of women seem to ASK for abuse from men who otherwise wouldn't think of doling it out ..I have worked with thousands of people,not dozens or hundreds,and knew/know most of them "enough" to be able to comfortably "size them up"( a not-so-scientific method,just like the born-victim theory). I know what you were driving at in your post. In atomizing people to fit lab-coat theories,we forget that we ALL are able to be manipulated,all are able to be victimized and all share at least one mutual tendency with people who get labeled,"born victim"....That was my primary objection to the "born victim" classification,not to you or anyone presenting it.
Author: Divia deBrevier Sunday, 28 July 2002 - 01:39 pm
Dear Howard: This post is just to acknowledge that I have read your post. I have no comment as I am not going to discuss it further. Let's just agree to disagree. Divia
Author: Richard P. Dewar Sunday, 28 July 2002 - 04:49 pm
Hi Divia, It is very dangerous to try to construct the personality of an anonymous person based upon the alleged anonymous actions of the individual. The fact is that while some psychological profiling has proven startlingly accurate in other circumstances it has proven to be highly inaccurate and led the authorities in the wrong direction. Two people can commit precisely the same act with different intentions and motivations. As an elementary example, two men might shove a woman as a bus is oncoming. Now, one of the men might have shoved her in front of the bus and the other may have shoved her out of the way of the bus. They both took the same physical action with differing motivations. Of course, nothing the Whitechapel murderer did could be construed as altruistic. However, his personal rationale for committing such vicious acts can only be speculated upon. Let me suggest to you several plausible scenarios that fit the pattern of the Whitechapel killings any one of which might lead to different interpretations as to how the killer thought: 1. A meglomaniacal avenger believing he is doing the work of God by slaughtering prostitutes. 2. A murderer operating under the belief he is under demonic possession. 3. A sexual sadist 4. A ritualistic murderer 5. A rabidly demented addicted or insane person 6. A murderer under a persecution complex who is exacting retribution The Whitechapel murderer could be placed in any of these categories and dozens of others. We can deduce really nothing about his background (abused as a child or no) unless we understand why he thought he was carrying out such crimes. And the fact is we simply do not know and are likely to never know. Regards, Rich
Author: Divia deBrevier Sunday, 28 July 2002 - 08:25 pm
Dear Rich: I understand and appreciate what you are saying. Let me clarify a few things: 1. I never said that the Ripper was an abuse victim. It was used as an example in an earlier post, not to be misconstrued as my actual belief. 2. My original post related to the fact that all but one victim were domestic abuse victims as well, and wondered if this could have made them more likely candidates on a more subliminal level. Again, I believe that it can be a deciding factor when the killer is choosing between two victims. Which one is more likely a victim? Which one is least likely to fight back? Which one is going to be easier to overpower? I'm sorry and apologize to everyone. I have already been informed that it was irrelevant. When I posted the original message, it was kind of like thinking out loud. I wanted to see what others thought about it. I really am sorry I posted it in the first place. It really was a waste of time. Warm regards, Divia
Author: Caroline Morris Monday, 29 July 2002 - 06:06 am
Hi All, Relevant? Irrelevant? Everything written on these boards is no doubt judged to be irrelevant by someone. Any woman, whose circumstances caused her to be out on the streets of 1888 Whitechapel alone after midnight, would have been ripe for Jacky's idea of fun, IMHO. And if he was an opportunistic serial killer targeting virtual strangers, he wouldn't have known, much less cared, enough about the individual circumstances of his next potential victim to select or reject on the basis of her attitude of mind as one of life's unfortunates. He would only have seen the outer shell of this 'thing' he encountered in the wee small hours, making at most a mental note of 'its' physical state and guessing its powers of resistance - maybe not even that, depending on the efficiency of his method of overpowering 'it'. Such killers are not renowned for their ability to relate to others. So I'm not sure a potential target's body language or conversation could have betrayed anything useful to Jack about her inner weakness or vulnerability. Moreover, the murdered women come across to me as having been street-wise, and on the whole pretty spirited souls, used to looking after themselves and having to survive as best they could, until the years, deprivation, alcoholism and ill-health in various combinations conspired against them, with Jack providing the final insult. Relevant or not, I still find it interesting to read people's thoughts on how Jack may have selected his victims and what may have motivated him. Of course, even if we could ask him, we wouldn't know whether he was telling the truth - or even that he had all the answers himself. Love, Caz
Author: Monty Monday, 29 July 2002 - 10:15 am
Divia, Nothing is irrelevant. How can it be ? The avenue which you choose to travel on this case is different from the one Howard chooses. To dismiss someones ideas or thoughts is completely foolish. Its something that happens here a lot (and yes, even though I try not to I have done it myself many a time. Its a regret) and its shameful. Dont be diswayed. Monty
Author: Divia deBrevier Monday, 29 July 2002 - 01:00 pm
Dear Caz: It was just a thought. An observation. Either I am not explaining it correctly or I am wrong. It was wrong. I was wrong. I am sorry! I don't know how to make it clearer that I understand now that this line of thought was foolish and a waste of time and energy, and that I am wrong. Dear Monty: It is irrelevant because this message board is apparently geared towards "Who was Jack the Ripper", not "What Makes Him Tick". I tried to move on, saying let's agree to disagree. Now others are posting on the subject further, rubbing my nose in it, just reinforcing that I am wrong. I wanted to know what others thought, and now I know: they think it is utter rubbish. What else can I say? Warm regards, Divia
Author: Caroline Morris Monday, 29 July 2002 - 01:39 pm
Hi Divia, I really wasn't trying to rub your nose in anything, or even suggest your observations were 'wrong', just offering my own observations on the same topic, by way of showing that I happen to think discussions about what people think made Jack tick are as relevant as those people want to make them. That's all. But I'll gladly drop it now and not raise the subject again unless you want to continue it. Love, Caz
Author: Ally Monday, 29 July 2002 - 01:40 pm
In Miami (where I was born and raised by a cop Daddy), I was taught that when you walk down a street, you look around, you DO make eye contact, you scowl, you look bad-ass and like you are ready to boot the butt of anyone to whom you take personal distate. This is the anti-victim strut. If you scurry about and don't look at anyone, you are more likely to be robbed. There is something to be said for criminals choosing their victims based on their body language. It is standard practice to teach body language in self-defense classes. That being said however, most of the victims were drunk at the times they were chosen ,which probably would have been the reason they were picked more than any "Domestic violence victimese" displayed in their body language. Drunk behavior is more a display of willing victim status than abused spouse behavior in any event and that would have probably been the first thing he went for. Regards, Ally
Author: Richard P. Dewar Monday, 29 July 2002 - 03:14 pm
Hi Divia, I hope that you did not construe my remarks as criticism of you or your theory - I realize sometimes my remarks in type appear harsher than intended. I understand you were thinking in print and I did not mean to attack your conclusions. It is possible that your ruminations are precisely accurate. I was trying to simply express my opposing view. I have found your posts to be quite sensible and illuminating - which is a welcome relief on these boards. Regards, Rich
Author: Scott E. Medine Monday, 29 July 2002 - 03:58 pm
Criminals are animals. Like animals they depend on their most primal of instincts, the instinct to smell fear. Fear in a person can be sensed. This is what gives some people the intimidation edge. If you do not believe this to be true then just take a stroll through your local high crime rate area at 2:00 A.M. If you still don�t believe it then step up to the big leagues and walk through Desire St. in New Orleans, Cabrini Green in Chicago, any where in South Central Los Angeles. The ability for some people to exude confidence and their awareness to pay attention to their surroundings, as compared to the inability for some, is what causes the purse snatcher to choose his victim wisely in the mall parking lot at Christmas. I often tell people, who feel the need to carry a concealed weapon, if you feel you need to strap yourself, then you have to ask yourself in what kind of situation do you plan on placing yourself? But here in the US it is our God given right to go where ever we want whenever we want. To include to the ATM at three in the morning. Peace, Scott
Author: Divia deBrevier Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 12:25 am
Dear Rich: Thank you for your kind words. No, I really didn't view your comments as criticism. When I read your comments, I thought maybe you weren't understanding where I was going with my thought. In truth, what annoyed me were the comments about "psychobabble" and "irrelevancy", and you were not the author of either. Mind you, I understand that not everyone is going to agree, or have the ability to persuade everyone to believe as they do. I really had no intention of carrying the discussion further if the general consensus was that my idea was "poppycock". I think that I just wasn't able to put into words what I was thinking. Scott's post really says it better than I ever could. You see, I really am a tower of useless knowledge... and some of that knowledge is incomplete. I never graduated from college. Dear Scott: Thank you, I could not have said it better! That is EXACTLY what I am driving at! I was just approaching it from a different angle, because my knowledge is from a different angle. Dear Ally: Yes, you are exactly right... and intoxication could certainly play a factor, if they were visibly drunk. I think that some of the reports said that the victims were visibly drunk, but I am not sure of all of them at this time. I don't have all the info in front of me right now. Again, I was approaching from a different angle because, well, I know more about abuse victims than I do about alcoholics. If you read my original post, I do mention the fact that they (the victims) all had alcohol problems. Dear Caz: I wasn't taking it as an attack, personal or otherwise, and I hope you didn't think I did. Again, I think that I was unable to express my thoughts properly and some were not understanding what I was driving at. I recognize that this discussion could rapidly evolve into beating a dead horse (smells like diary ink, no less)and I thought it best to end it before it turns ugly. The truth is, I never went to college for more than one semester. I have not devoted the best part of my life to studying the Ripper case or any field related to it. I work two jobs to make ends meet, and one of those jobs involves selling lipstick. In other words: I have the common sense to know that there is always going to be someone more knowledgable than myself and I have the good sense to admit to it. See? We really do come from all walks of life. Warm regards, Divia PS: I hope that no one thinks that I have been a bit of a pouty brat. Truly, I was trying to maintain a sensible discussion and not to take anything personally. My skin is too thick to have my feelings hurt because someone disagreed with my views. If anyone thought otherwise, I apologize.
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 08:23 am
Dear Diva, Glad to be of assistance. I was adding to Ally's comment. A street cop(as her father sounds like hw was at some point)taught her wisely. Gang members will try to eye f**k you (their term not mine). Its a way of testing your mettle if you back down and look the other way then they just punked you and they know you're easy. If you stand rock solid then you earn a measure of their respect as you become, in their terms, bout it bout it. Rock on. Peace, Scott
Author: David O'Flaherty Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 10:55 am
Boy, Scott and Ally have it right. Way back in 1993, I lived on Lakeshore Drive in Chicago. My wife at the time decided to take me out to dinner (this was the eve of a business trip), and we took a leisurely stroll of about thirty minutes to a little seafood restaurant on Wells Street. After we were done, my wife insisted we walk back, this time by way of a 'shortcut.' The farther we walked along this route, the more desolate the area became, the fewer cabs patrolled the area. We knew we were in serious trouble when we came across Cabrini Church, which my wife instantly recognized, as she had just seen it featured on the news. I also had a sinking feeling as I saw the twin towers of Cabrini Green rising before us. For those who don't know, Cabrini Green was a housing project in Chicago. There were two high-rises, each teneted by a different gang. They used to shoot at each other from these buildings, but mostly the only thing they shot were children who had to cross between the buildings to get to school. Such an incident had just occured and the area had been featured on the news, otherwise we wouldn't have recognized it. We had no idea the area was so close to our own neighborhood (which we'd just moved to). Anyway, what Ally and Scott say is spot on. There were tons of people in gang colors hanging out on the street, and when they saw us, things got very quiet and they began staring us down. One gentleman was banging the post of a street light with some kind of club. Cars passing us slowed down to check us out. My wife and I were terrified, but knew that if we did something stupid (like run), we were in serious trouble. Without speaking to each other, we both decided to pretend like we belonged there, and were just out for an evening stroll. We looked no one in the eyes, but we didn't try to look away, either. At one point a cab finally did pass us--I'll never forget the amazed double-take the driver did as he spotted us. "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" his expression seemed to say. He actually slowed down for us (cabs and even ambulances were often shot at as they drove through Cabrini Green), but he was too far away for us to get to (again, we didn't want to run, and he didn't want to hang around to wait for us). So we missed the cab, but we did make it out of Cabrini Green and crossed the dividing line of Division Street, where the scenery abruptly changed from desolate housing project and gangs to Gold Coast with woman wearing furs and tiny cowboy hats and TONS of police. My wife and I were so glad that we bought cigarettes and smoked one right then and there. I can only think no one bothered us because we didn't show we were scared. And they probably thought we were there to buy drugs. Well, it's been a year since I've been to Chicago, but on my last visit I saw that Cabrini Green was no more. The two high-rises were still there, although obviously vacant. The city has renovated the entire area, and it looks safe enough to walk through, although you wouldn't catch me doing it, not by a long shot Anyway, don't walk like a victim. And know your neighborhood. And never, ever listen to your wife. Cheers, Dave
Author: Ally Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 11:08 am
LOL..yeah Scott my daddy taught me well but you should see the looks I get when I stalk down little old town Podunk, VA. Too many years of ingrained "don't stroll, strut". I am not one for quiet meanderings down Quaint Street. And you never know...that little old blue haired lady just might be a pickpocket...
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 11:16 am
Hi all, Many violent criminals are brutal vicious thugs with more animal instinct than intelligence. We can all agree on that. However, this is not universal. There are rare exceptions (and these are usually exaggerated) when a killer is actually a highly intelligent and sophisticated individual carrying out sinister purposes and cravings. No doubt, most violent criminals are monsters and animals. However, there are a few who believe they are Nietsche supermen who due to their believed superiority feel that they can carry out any depraved desire they want. I would point to Leopold & Loeb and Zodiac as rare examples of extremely intelligent thrill killers. Are they brutal and vicious? Yes. Are they animals? To my way of thinking - no. Their crimes were not based on instincts toward violence but rather deliberate attempts to prove their superior intelligence. This is not an "animalistic" trait. The Unabomber was in this highly intelligent category too. And this was known based on the crimes he carried out - which were thoughtful, deliberate, and well planned. Was the Whitechapel murderer a savage instinctual animal or a cold deliberate intelligent killer. I lean to the former more than the latter - but with the killer being anonymous and the crimes murky in their intent, we just don't have enough evidence to come to any definitive conclusion. Regards, Rich
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 12:25 pm
Ally, You are so right. Ain't nobody gonna pick your pocket. Attitude is everything! Rich, Intelligence is relative. David spoke of a �gentleman� banging on a light post with a club. Chances are he was tapping out a code alerting everyone in the area to the presence of him and his wife. I am sure other codes were passed the further they walked, some probably not so obvious. The removing of a cap. The dropping of a bandana, which if I ever saw I would have to say either run or prepare to die standing and fighting. Street level gang members thrive on their feeling of superiority and the respect they receive. The problem there is the feeling of superiority and respect comes from the fear they are picking up off of their potential prey. When the 5-0 (a police unit) rolls through the area, either marked or unmarked, and they can id the unmarked units as well, the alert goes up and before the unit traverses a block the weapons and drugs are off the street and the police, more than likely, never saw or heard the sign. Basically, all thugs are not dumb animal like creatures. In fact statistics show that by far the hardest homicides to solve, and the homicides that for the most part go unsolved, are the gang related homicides. Not just because of the fear factor employed on the street and the code of silence within their ranks, but also because of the planning that goes into the killing. Most gang related hits, even the simple drive by, only goes down after being planned with attention to detail so close that it resembles a military planed strike. If you think that gang members are stupid, then you have just made a fatal mistake. The Latin Kings and Black Gangster Disciples each have their own manifestos and regulations. The Black Gangster Disciples, the largest known street gang in the U.S. with 375,000 KNOWN members nation wide are required to make a pilgrimage to a specific street corner in Chicago ( I forget where at the moment) in order to pay homage to King David Barksdale the founding member. Because Barksdale was the founding member and declared himself King of the BGD Nation, the BGDs adopted the six pointed Star of David as their symbol. Barksdale has long since died and the current King (can�t recall his name at the moment, but the Ghetto Boyz Rap group have a telephone interview with him on their Resurrection CD) is serving 3 consecutive life sentences in the Illinois State Prison. All 375,000 members of the BGD Nation take their orders from him. The BGD made a serious push in recent years trying to win the Illinois Governor�s race and almost succeeded in winning the Chicago Mayor�s race. They made it past the Primary and their candidate, a BGD member and prominent Chicago Attorney, almost won the run-off, if not for a probing investigative reporter. Their candidate had the backing of Oprah Winfrey, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Alec Baldwin and Kim Bassinger as well as Barbara Streisand and the Governor of Illinois. BGD members are required to know certain bits of BGD History. Tidbits like how many bullets took down King David Barksdale. What were Barksdale�s last words. What are the meaning of the colors Black and Blue. What is the significance of 274 and a host of other things. So, for the most part, comparing the feeling of superiority, the intelligence level et al between Rollin� 60 Crip Monster Cody Scott and the UNABOMBER we see that they are essentially brother predators of the same fold. When I die have no pity Just Bury me deep In Gangsta City (Black Gangster Disciple Blessing) Scott
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 02:03 pm
Hi Scott, I find nothing in your post to quibble with in the slightest. I would not generalize that members of street gangs lack intelligence - some do and obviously others do not. My point with regard to the Whitechapel murder case is that based on the known facts it is extremely difficult to estimate the killer's intelligence. Regards, Rich
Author: Garry Wroe Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 03:10 pm
Hello All. All human beings are animals. Homo sapiens are designated zoologically as upper primates. Apes, monkeys and limas belong to the lower primate genus. I would also suggest that, whilst many criminals exhibit cunning, few are possessed of real intelligence. Bye. Garry Wroe.
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 04:13 pm
Rich, Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I also sometimes tend to ramble. I agree whole heartedly. I also have always felt that if a suspect was abused, had a domineering mother, was a fire starter, bed wetter, yadda, yadda, yadda did not help me nor did it matter in the grand scheme of things. I needed a face, name and address. Height and weight, size etc always was more helpful. I could spot a 6'2" 245 lb man. An abused schizophrenic was a little harder. Gary, I agree in some aspects. Here�s my way of looking at things. All people are animals and all have the intelligence to know right from wrong and all have the primal ability to kill. Peace, Scott
Author: Caroline Morris Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 05:25 am
Hi All, Assuming for a moment that the Ripper wasn't your average gang member, pickpocket or rapist, but a lone psychopath on the lookout for likely victims on which to put his signature, how much might 'attitude' and 'strut', rather than totter and stroll, have helped any of the murdered women stay safe, and caused this predator to move on to the next, and more vulnerable-looking 'unfortunate', out on the streets after midnight? On the nights they died, Nichols was seen 'drunk and staggering' at 2.30am. Donovan said he found Chapman drunk, complaining "I am weak and ill", around 1.30am. Eddowes made a drunken scene at 8.30pm but had pretty much sobered up by 1.30am. (From memory I don't think they found any alcohol to speak of in her body.) Kelly was either drunk or suffering a hangover from hell when her killer pounced. But these two later victims, whoever killed them, appear to have had more spirit and attitude - survival stuff - than the earlier two. I don�t suppose anything can be read into that, in terms of Jack possibly moving on to less vulnerable types as his confidence, or recklessness, grew � it�s such a tiny sample, especially as many prefer not to include Kelly in this kind of speculation anyway. Might the Yorkshire Ripper�s victims provide more insight into selection by signs of vulnerability? Many, though certainly not all, of Sutcliffe�s earlier victims were middle-aged prostitutes, working in well-known red light areas, where there was at least some interaction going on before he attacked and killed them. But young, fit non-prostitutes featured as well, and more predominantly towards the end of the series, when he appeared to pick on lone females pretty much at random, who were out walking in relatively safe environments, striking from behind with no preamble, and little or no warning. Would any of them be alive today if only they had perfected their �don�t mess with me� strut? Or did they stand no more chance than the dear old blue-rinsed lady out for a Sunday evening stroll with her Pekinese, once Sutcliffe had them in his sights, hammer in hand? And how could today's prostitutes learn from the Whitechapel victims of the 1880s how to optimise their chances of avoiding trouble - not from gang member, thief, pimp, or non-paying 'customer', but from the thankfully much rarer type - the serial killer? Love, Caz
Author: Monty Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 07:58 am
Scott, Want to mail me the details re the Bradford reporter ? I got time to chase it. Monty
Author: Scott E. Medine Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 10:51 am
Monty, I will email you the information today. Thnks, Scott
Author: Scott E. Medine Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 10:54 am
Caz, The problem with the victims is that they were prostitutes. For the most part prostitutes will go with anybody that has the money. Prostitutes will have an addiction to feed be it drugs or alcohol. That addiction is fed first, and for the most part, the person will place aside personal safety and personal responsibilities to feed the addiction. Usually as the night draws on the prostitutes seen will be under the influence of their favorite poison. Some prostitutes will be more assertive of their safety than others and will only serve regular clients, thinking that they are safe. I have not looked in detail at the Eddowes and Kelly murders but, with facial mutilations aside, this is one reason why I think they knew their murderer. Peace, Scott
Author: Caroline Morris Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 02:00 pm
Hi Scott, Thanks for your reply - very reasonable and full of common sense. And you hit on what was one of my main points. Since these women had no way of knowing who, or even what kind of a man, Jack was, or how he liked to approach and attack his targets, 'thinking that they are safe' by sticking with regular clients, or looking like they are no pushover, or whatever, would be no guarantee of safety at all. And certainly, if Eddowes and Kelly knew their killer, no amount of street-wise 'attitude', or strutting out with confidence, would have made the slightest difference. There must even be serial killers out there who actually prefer to show who's boss with the woman who makes like she'd put up the best fight, rather than the poor frail scaredy cat who tries to run a mile if a stranger so much as smiles at her. But who knows? Love, Caz
Author: Monty Monday, 05 August 2002 - 08:17 am
Scott, Sorry to be a pain in the butt but I have not recieved a thing in my mail. What go wrong ? Monty
Author: david rhea Monday, 05 August 2002 - 09:23 pm
We still must keep in mind that these murders occurred within an area of 1 square mile.The killer was concerned to kill in this area and not a wider one. If he had desired a wider one it was certainly there for him to use.
Author: Neil K. MacMillan Monday, 30 December 2002 - 01:27 pm
David: I find your point valid but since we don't know who Jack was, we can't be certain he didn't wield his knife further afield than the square mile his victims were slaughtered in. A "What if" here; What if after he killed Kelly our boy (Or Boys) pulled stakes and went to America or Europe? What if he (they) laid low for a while and stalked Liverpool, Edinburgh, Glascow, Dublin? We don't know but has anyone investigated the possibility that Jack didn't stop, he just relocated? Kindest regards, Neil
Author: Dan Norder Monday, 30 December 2002 - 03:24 pm
Neil, The relocation possibility has been brought up. If you go to the Victims page you can read about the Carrie Brown murder in New Jersey, USA, and the Dissertation section has essays on The Ripper in America and a Tale of Two Frenchys. You can also do a keyword search on these boards (at left) for "John Anderson" (must include quotes or else you get all the Robert Anderson mentions) for a suspect who got all the way to Brazil. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation ----------------------------------------------------------------
Author: ALAN SMITH Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 05:25 am
If Jack was determined to attack prostitutes and prostitutes alone, what were his options? Were ther other areas of the capital which had such an abundance of "fallen women" as Whitechapel had? I know that modern profiling suggests that he lived in the immediate area, but surely if he lived in St John's Wood or Knightsbridge and had murderous inclinations toward that particular class of woman, he would have had no choice but to travel. Alan
Author: Diana Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 09:19 pm
One of the reasons we think he was a resident of Whitechapel is if I understand correctly Whitechapel was a kind of a maze. There were all kinds of alleys, dead ends, side streets obscure little courts and lots of twists and turns. It is thought that part of the reason Jack got away is because he knew the geography of the place. If he did not know the area intimately he would have quickly become lost, taken a wrong turn and been caught.
Author: richard nunweek Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 06:22 am
Hi Diana, I would agree that Jack would have had to be familiar with the area, yet he would not have had to reside in the area of Whitechapel. For exsample if the latest theory is correct refering to the distances between sites , then the killer would have walked his hunting site many times in preparation for his forthcoming deeds. Regards Richard.
Author: Monty Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 11:49 am
Luvvies, Are we just talking geography when we are stating that Jack knew the area ? Its just I got a feeling that he knew it really well. Not just the roads, streets, courts and alleys but the Police beats and the timing of, times the markets set up, when the doss houses shut..ect. What would interest me is if the police varied the timing of their beats...anyone know ?? Monty
Author: AP. Wolf Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 01:58 pm
Well Monty, what about a clerk who helped put together a trade directory for the Whitechapel area and had an uncle who was a senior police officer actually investigating the Ripper crimes at the time of the murders? If I told you this same clerk had stabbed four women and attempted to cut his aunt's and maid's throats would that help? What about if this same clerk worked in the tea-trade for many years, specifically for Kearley & Tonge and three of the victims were murdered outside their tea warehouses? What about if both the prosecution and defence in his case when he was brought to court for stabbing women claimed that he was the 'Whitechapel Murderer?' Still not enough? Right, I'll find more.
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 02:11 pm
Hey AP! Now you've got me wondering about Thomas Cutbush. Perhaps I was hasty in dismissing him as a mere fanny stabber. You've gotta stop chatting and GET BACK TO THE BOOK! The suspense is killing me! Best regards, Sir Robert
Author: AP. Wolf Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 04:36 pm
Ah yes Sir Robert, suspense is everything. Thomas Cutbush. A young man who likes to spend a long time in front of the mirror, studying himself from every angle, when someone disturbs him at this pursuit he can become very aggressive. A foreman who disturbs him at his solitary task in a tea warehouse is savagely attacked and thrown down a long flight of steps, injured so badly that he must spend the next two weeks in hospital, when other workers crowd around the foreman comatose at the bottom of the stairs Thomas says: 'Poor man, he has fallen down the stairs.' When Thomas is finally confined to a lunatic asylum, stripped naked and tied to a bed watched by five male nurses it takes him less than five minutes to free himself, overpower all the male nurses and make good his escape out of a window, stark naked, to race over walls and yards, burst into a house, steal clothes and emerge on the streets a few seconds later, fully dressed and join in the hue and cry for the escaped lunatic. Thomas was a very fast and clever boy. Now, shall we talk about his uncle?
Author: Diana Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 07:44 pm
Why would his MO have changed so drastically?
Author: AP. Wolf Friday, 07 February 2003 - 04:55 am
I was about to answer that question when I suddenly realized that I am practically giving away everything that is in the next chapter of the book - that is being posted chapter by chapter elsewhere on this site - when not the entire book, so had better resist the temptation. I do cover this very point in the next chapter and as you will see it is not at all unusual for this type of killer to modify his MO drastically, and sometimes to give up all together.
Author: Monty Friday, 07 February 2003 - 11:02 am
AP, You dont have to sell Mr Cutbush to me. He his the type that would interest me if I was Mr Abberline. Interest me greatly. Monty
Author: Diana Friday, 07 February 2003 - 08:12 pm
Elsewhere on this site? Where elsewhere? I'm interested.
Author: AP. Wolf Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 04:34 am
Diana just do a search on the homepage for 'Jack the Myth' by AP Wolf and go to the review then click on appropriate button and the book should come up chapter by chapter.

Add a Message