Jack the Ripper

[trubble]

Jan 23, 2010 12:04:16 GMT gabriel said:

And I was in my local library today and there was a very old copy of Knight's book. His wild stories really began what drives the interest in Jack today. I might start to look at Jack as a social phomenon. Not just as a serial killer.

My flashback, at the moment. Having lunch as the East India Docklands. Having visited the JTR exhibit. And I went back again a few weeks later.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Maybe I shouldn't be looking at Jack at the moment but the area and the social environment.

I might start to look at Jack as a social phomenon. Not just as a serial killer.

You mean look at the interest in him as a social phenomenon? I think that is very interesting. I suppose that people have enjoyed stories for as back as we can trace human life and that this is a story that has everything. Violence, gore, drama, sex, low-life, aristocracy, a proper unsolved mystery... I can't think of another story that covers all the bases as well as this one. It's the ultimate in fireside tales.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Maybe I shouldn't be looking at Jack at the moment but the area and the social environment

What do you mean? You mean see the case as an historical snapshot of the way things were...?

[trubble]

Nov 28, 2009 6:17:50 GMT gabriel said:

You've got other things on your mind. Don't worry about it.

For anyone who's interested and hasn't read Stephen Knight's The Final Solution, he's the one who started the Masonic conspiracy angle. The Duke of Clarence and Avondale, eldest son of the Prince of Wales (so he was heir presumptive) married a poor Catholic girl in Whitechapel. They had a daughter. This was illegal because any member of the Royal family under the age of 25 can't marry without the sovereign's consent and they can't marry Catholics(certainly not back then).

So to wipe out this 'threat' to the monarchy, a group of high ranking Masons turned to one of their own, the Queen's physician ordinary, Sir William Gull. The Catholic girl was lobotimized or something similar and sent to an an asylum. The child was adopted out. And the 5 prostitutes who knew about the story were killed in Masonic ritual by Sir William, who was driven around in a coach by John Nettley.

Great story. Just no real, solid, can stand up to any investigation facts to back it up.

It sounds like a brilliant story. It also sounds far too neat and interesting. Real murders seem to be much more ordinary than our imaginations would like with just a few notable exceptions but, even then, large scale conspiracies don't seem to figure.


Very much as a side note, Gabriel, but on the topic of great stories, did you ever see the documentary called Death on the Staircase?

If not, don't google it, it will spoil the intrigue and the documentary tells the story so perfectly -- try to watch it first!

www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/death-on-the-staircase.shtml

On 9 December 2001, novelist Michael Peterson dialled 911 to tell the police that his wife had fallen down the stairs, and was unconscious. When the ambulance arrived five minutes later she was dead, lying in a pool of blood.

This astonishing eight-part series documents the trial of Peterson in Durham, North Carolina. Granted access to the defence team, the filmmaker is able to show us in detail the meetings between Peterson and his lawyers. But we also discover the strategy of the prosecution.

I don't really feel that I'm allowed to reveal much more of the story - but there are two astounding twists towards the middle, and the series will keep you stuck to your seat throughout.

We may be used to suspense in American courtroom dramas, courtesy of Raymond Burr. But Death on the Staircase has something else - it examines whether juries are ever capable of reaching a verdict based on more-or-less objective considerations. Can it be that jurors are merely motivated by their own prejudices?

Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, who won an Oscar for his last courtroom film set in America, Murder on a Sunday Morning, is prudently cautious in coming to any conclusions. But he makes you worried about such matters.

At a time when at long last the British are opening up some courts to public view, this series is a must see. But it is also a landmark in the history of documentaries. Nothing John Grisham wrote was ever half as good as this.

[trubble]

Jan 25, 2010 12:22:33 GMT gabriel said:

As a social phenomenon, Jack is just as compelling as he was a serial killer. Jack IMO wouldn't have existed 50 years earlier. He just had to get all those bits of timing right. The Industrial Rev and the movement to the cities; the resulting over-population in London; the hide-bound govt who weren't going to help the poor and the desperately poor come whatever. The rise of literacy among the lower classes - whoever told them they could read and then taught them!

The rise of Marxism in Europe and the dangerous idea that people should be able to think for themselves instead of always obeying their 'betters'. The pogroms that drove the Jews out of Russia, Poland, Europe towards London and the intense dislike the people already entrenched in London felt towards these newcomers.

Easy scapegoats who could be blamed for many things, including Jack's murders.

And Jack is dressed in his dark clothes that hide the bloodstains, as he slips quietly away to blend into Whitechapel.

Hold on, other 'Jacks' have existed surely? Has the Zodiac Killer been caught?

[gabriel]

Well you're absolutely correct when you say other Jacks have existed but that's a broad term for serial killers.

There was only one JTR. Only one stalked the streets of Whitechapel and he's the one I'm interested in. You see where I discount the idea of 2 or 3 or take your pick among the conspiracy theories.

You know, I myself don't understand why people can't accept the idea of one man, alone, a disorganized killer, possessed by his own demons, living in the area or close to it, as JTR.

Not royal, not a doctor, barrister, butcher, baker, candlestick maker. Just a guy you wouldn't look at twice unless you were a prostitute and you went with him.

trubble, thanks for taking the trouble with mouse to reply. The case you mentioned reminds me a lot of Amy Robsart. Dead wife of the Earl of Dudley. He wanted to marry E1. Didn't happen.

Cheers

[gabriel]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6261360/Jack-the-Rippers-identity-finally-uncovered.html

Jack the Ripper's identity finally uncovered?
An historian has claimed to have discovered the real identity of Jack the Ripper, and believes the notorious Whitechapel murderer was also responsible for killing two more women.

Published: 11:44AM BST 05 Oct 2009

Link to this video Mei Trow used modern police forensic techniques, including psychological and geographical profiling, to identify Robert Mann, a morgue attendant, as the killer.

Broadmoor files could unmask Jack the Ripper
Trow's research is rooted in information from a 1988 FBI examination of the Ripper case, which had worked up a comprehensive criminal personality profile.

The portrait drawn up of Jack was as a white male from the lower social classes, most likely the product of a broken home.

It was also thought he would have had a menial job but with some anatomical knowledge, something like a butcher, mortuary or medical examiner's assistant or hospital attendant.

Because of prolonged periods without human interaction, Jack would also have been socially inept

It is known that Mann was from an extremely deprived background. His father was absent for much of his upbringing and he had spent some time as a child in a workhouse.

Trow said: "I wanted to go beyond the myth of a caped man with a top hat and knife, and get to the reality, and the reality is simply that Jack was an ordinary man."

Trow makes another startling conjecture, that the Ripper killed another two women.

He believes Martha Tabram, found with 39 stab wounds to her body in Gunthorpe Street, was the first of Jack's victims, and Alice Mackenzie, brutally murdered eight months after the confirmed five killings, was his last.

The two women, along with Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, would have been delivered to the Whitechapel mortuary in which Robert Mann worked.

After the killing of Polly Nichols, Jack's first recognised victim, Mann unlocked the mortuary for the police so they could examine the body and as such, was called as a witness in her inquest to help establish the cause of death.

Most damningly, he undressed Polly's body with his assistant, despite being under strict instructions from Inspector Spratling to not touch the body, and Trow suspects that this was an opportunity to admire his handiwork.

The Coroner, in his summation of Robert Mann's testimony, concluded that, "It appears the mortuary-keeper is subject to fits, and neither his memory nor statements are reliable."

Professor Laurence Alison, Forensic Psychologist at Liverpool University, who features in the documentary, said: "In terms of psychological profiling, Robert Mann is the one of the most credible suspects from recent years and the closest we may ever get to a plausible psychological explanation for these most infamous of Victorian murders."

Trow's is the latest in a long line of theories about who Jack the Ripper was. More than 100 suspects have been proposed over the years, including a member of the royal family, a doctor and even the artist Walter Sickert.


Jack was an ordinary bloke who lived in the neighbourhood and had some skill in cutting animals or humans. No great surprises there.

[♫anna♫]

I dunno Gabe,
I think the lack of social skills would make it hard for Robert Mann to approach his victims and gain their trust. True he isn't a shabby bum, like Kosminski, but he seems to be a visibly damaged person and street wise people keep their distance from people like him. He doesn't seem to fit into the Mary Kelly scenario at all either.
biographical-documentaries.suite101.com/article.cfm/jack_the_ripper_new_suspect_discovery_channel
wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Robert_Mann

[gabriel]

Feb 21, 2010 6:08:03 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

I dunno Gabe,
I think the lack of social skills would make it hard for Robert Mann to approach his victims and gain their trust. True he isn't a shabby bum, like Kosminski, but he seems to be a visibly damaged person and street wise people keep their distance from people like him. He doesn't seem to fit into the Mary Kelly scenario at all either.
biographical-documentaries.suite101.com/article.cfm/jack_the_ripper_new_suspect_discovery_channel
wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Robert_Mann

The only relationship Mann had to Jack was that Mann was a morgue attendant. That's it. He wasn't Jack. But his background I think was similar to Jack's. But again, it's choose someone as a suspect and make him fit the facts, instead of making the facts fit him.

Thanks for the links.

Gabriel

[riotgrrl]

Hi, just browsing online and came across this link and thought of you lot.

I expect those of you with an interest have already seen most of this, but maybe not.

Anyway, just trying to be helfpul!

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/system/topicRoot/The_Jack_the_Ripper_murders/

It's the Times archive - how they reported on the crimes at the time.

[♫anna♫]

Feb 21, 2010 11:01:32 GMT gabriel said:

The only relationship Mann had to Jack was that Mann was a morgue attendant. That's it. He wasn't Jack. But his background I think was similar to Jack's. But again, it's choose someone as a suspect and make him fit the facts, instead of making the facts fit him.

Thanks for the links.

Gabriel

I agree! I'm sure anyone who takes the R. Mann theory seriously assumes that jtr was first and foremost a necrophile. Then comes the assumption that necrophiles like to work in mortuaries and finally the giant leap into a fantasy that even with the option of working in a profession that may satisfy a necrophile that's not enough. I'd be surprised if we had a real world example of a mortican or morituary assistant "needing more" and hitting the streets as a serial killer.

Necrophile serial killers ( e. g. the Green River Killer, etc. ) strike in isolated areas or somewhere where the chance of a witness appearing is insignificant. jtr wasn't primarily a sadist either, because they too wish to concentrate fully on their crime and want privacy and time when they strike.

I suspect jtr was an exhibitionistic psychopath. His personality i'd describe as the dark side of the enneagram type 3 personalty ( biglinmarshall.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=18&page=1 ). He could present himself well in public, well dressed, enterprising and even charming to those who didn't tune into the egoistic and superifical bragging. He was a resident of Whitechapel too. His main drive to murder was exhibitionism! He had no personal interest in his victims, but like such killers ( e.g. btk killer ) he enjoyed the shock effect his killings had on society and could relive the murders through the eyes of his community and the media, continually attempting to reconstruct the murders and giving this killer more satisfaction. It wasn't "bloodlust" that drove him, but an evil desire to reduce his victims to a form of shocking public artwork. He never became fully absorbed in his murders, except perhaps in the case of Mary Kelly. He was constantly and keenly aware of his surroundings and careful not to get blood on his clothes. He was a bit of a gambler and enjoyed the risk taking and was highly aware of the risk involved and quick to disappear, when a potential witness approached.

[gabriel]

Thanks for your link riotgirl. You know, as quaint as it seems to us today, those papers were pretty inflammatory. Especially the 'lower' end ones, not The Times, of course, but those aimed at the newly literate working class of London. Because that's where the Socialists were aiming for new recruits. And I think a lot of Jack's importance was due to that possible class struggle - it was certainly perceived as such by many in the government and by those with a leaning towards Marx and possibly the Fenians.

anna, I'll have to go back and read about your personality type. We continue to disagree about what drove Jack which is fine because that's what drives debates. I firmly believe something inside Jack suddenly blew and he literally couldn't help himself. He had to kill. And I agree with you that it was more than bloodlust but no, I don't picture Jack as an exhibitionist, killing as his means of dropping his pants to society.

He was a disorganized killer. He took incredible risks to kill - during daylight, in areas like Dutfield's Yard where he could easily have been cornered. Something drove him on and I don't think, at the end, that he could control himself. What he did to Kelly was beyond anything seen before or pretty much since. He just lost it. Pure and simple. He had that woman, in that room, all to himself with no interruptions. And he butchered her. There wasn't anything recognisable of Kelly left after he finished with her. Barrett identified herby her eyes and hairline.

Gabriel

[♫anna♫]

I have to believe jtr was the btk type killer. If he was so explosively impulsive he would have been caught as is the rule with this type of killer. If his sole object was to kill the victim he would have had less of a thrill because if he concentrated on the murders instead of the surroundings he would have been caught.

Perhaps exhibistionism is the wrong term, but i sense he felt the thrill of a gambler. When a gambler succeeds against the odds they feel a kick and a sense of superiority.

I can't disprove those who disagree, but i feel this profile is the most likely.

[gabriel]

Sure, Jack was a gambler. I agree absolutely. That's why he took such risks. But I suppose it comes down to why you think he took those risks - his motivation.

You think he was looking for attention. I think he couldn't help himself. He certainly didn't care, IMO, if he was caught. You could argue it was blind luck or his knowledge of the area or a combination of both that meant he got away with these crimes. And police ineptitude and public mistrust of the establishment and a whole host of other issues.

See now, Jack would probably be caught after the 2nd murder if he got that far.

Well, we agree he wasn't a necrophile. Certainly not. He wasn't interested in necrophilia - he wanted what? To destroy the women, yes, to take away their reproductive organs, yes. To vent his hatred on who? These prostitutes? I don't think so. I believe every time he killed, he was probably killing some specific woman from his past. Mother, wife, sister, girlfriend... JMO. But I think I'm right.

[♫anna♫]

I think the Victorian era police didn't suspect anyone with say a btk type profile. We agree he was a gambler and enjoyed the risks he was taking. The need for attention usually gets these people caught, but not neccesarily at the crime scene.

Not that you're wrong, but i don't feel he was avenging himself for some bad relationship with a woman. A lot of serial killers who claim that's their reason are probably just trying to manipulate their way into a more comforable looney bin too.
Like the btk killer he probably just had an appetite for evil. The organs he took were throphies to remind him that he was the killer, add to the shock element of the crime and highten the risk taking thrill. He wanted to victimize his community more than the victims-my "hunch".

If he was as careful as i suspect in positioning himself away from any blood splattering he'd likely return to the crime scene posing as a "concerned citizen" or maybe even smiling inappropriately as a photograph of one of the Ertman-Pena killers in a crowd of crime scene spectators shows.

I'm surprised no one suspected him of being a member of the media. True the letters were written by various people probably working for a newspaper. Whoever encouraged or instigated these letters being wrote would be an interesting suspect.

And like the arsonist, who returns to help the firefighters he may have been involved with the citizens, who patrolled the streets-naw not a policeman-not "Maniac Cop", but one of say George Lusk's patrollers.

He wasn't the type of suspect the Victorian era police expected, but naw he certainly wasn't a royal prince.

[gabriel]

Feb 23, 2010 8:30:41 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

I think the Victorian era police didn't suspect anyone with say a btk type profile. We agree he was a gambler and enjoyed the risks he was taking. The need for attention usually gets these people caught, but not neccesarily at the crime scene.

Not that you're wrong, but i don't feel he was avenging himself for some bad relationship with a woman. A lot of serial killers who claim that's their reason are probably just trying to manipulate their way into a more comforable looney bin too.
Like the btk killer he probably just had an appetite for evil. The organs he took were throphies to remind him that he was the killer, add to the shock element of the crime and highten the risk taking thrill. He wanted to victimize his community more than the victims-my "hunch".

If he was as careful as i suspect in positioning himself away from any blood splattering he'd likely return to the crime scene posing as a "concerned citizen" or maybe even smiling inappropriately as a photograph of one of the Ertman-Pena killers in a crowd of crime scene spectators shows.

I'm surprised no one suspected him of being a member of the media. True the letters were written by various people probably working for a newspaper. Whoever encouraged or instigated these letters being wrote would be an interesting suspect.

And like the arsonist, who returns to help the firefighters he may have been involved with the citizens, who patrolled the streets-naw not a policeman-not "Maniac Cop", but one of say George Lusk's patrollers.

He wasn't the type of suspect the Victorian era police expected, but naw he certainly wasn't a royal prince.

Well he wasn't a royal prince I agree. And he had an appetite for evil well I don't know. If by that you mean someone like Aleister Crowley and all that BS then no that wasn't Jack.

He was careful about getting the minimal amount of blood splatter on himself, you're right about that. That was because he'd worked out what he was going to do. He was right handed, on her right side, he lays her down on the ground after he chokes her. He cuts left to right across her throat. The carotid artery splashes against the fence or wall to her left - her heart is still beating. The absolute example is the back yard of Hanbury St. The blood spray was evident on the paling fence.

He could have been a journo. I doubt it. Those letters and I've seen the originals were written by blokes who wanted to increase the paper's circulation. Not by Jack.

But again . JMO

[♫anna♫]

Feb 23, 2010 11:54:03 GMT gabriel said:

Feb 23, 2010 8:30:41 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

I think the Victorian era police didn't suspect anyone with say a btk type profile. We agree he was a gambler and enjoyed the risks he was taking. The need for attention usually gets these people caught, but not neccesarily at the crime scene.

Not that you're wrong, but i don't feel he was avenging himself for some bad relationship with a woman. A lot of serial killers who claim that's their reason are probably just trying to manipulate their way into a more comforable looney bin too.
Like the btk killer he probably just had an appetite for evil. The organs he took were throphies to remind him that he was the killer, add to the shock element of the crime and highten the risk taking thrill. He wanted to victimize his community more than the victims-my "hunch".

If he was as careful as i suspect in positioning himself away from any blood splattering he'd likely return to the crime scene posing as a "concerned citizen" or maybe even smiling inappropriately as a photograph of one of the Ertman-Pena killers in a crowd of crime scene spectators shows.

I'm surprised no one suspected him of being a member of the media. True the letters were written by various people probably working for a newspaper. Whoever encouraged or instigated these letters being wrote would be an interesting suspect.

And like the arsonist, who returns to help the firefighters he may have been involved with the citizens, who patrolled the streets-naw not a policeman-not "Maniac Cop", but one of say George Lusk's patrollers.

He wasn't the type of suspect the Victorian era police expected, but naw he certainly wasn't a royal prince.

Well he wasn't a royal prince I agree. And he had an appetite for evil well I don't know. If by that you mean someone like Aleister Crowley and all that BS then no that wasn't Jack.

He was careful about getting the minimal amount of blood splatter on himself, you're right about that. That was because he'd worked out what he was going to do. He was right handed, on her right side, he lays her down on the ground after he chokes her. He cuts left to right across her throat. The carotid artery splashes against the fence or wall to her left - her heart is still beating. The absolute example is the back yard of Hanbury St. The blood spray was evident on the paling fence.

He could have been a journo. I doubt it. Those letters and I've seen the originals were written by blokes who wanted to increase the paper's circulation. Not by Jack.

But again . JMO

Well if Jtr was a journo he could have encouraged his co-workers to write these letters, obstensibly to get newspapers sold. He could write his own letters too with co-workers to his left and right writing them. Who would know who the real ripper was.

I'm sure jtr enjoyed the manner in which the murders were relived in the community and the almost voyeuristic need to know more. The journo theory is just a guess, but i think he was in some form in the midst of the Whitechapel community reliving the murders via the communities' reaction.

[gabriel]

anna, I can't get my head around Jack killing Cathy Eddowes then wandering into a news service urging journos to write whacked out letters to the cops. They may have wanted to up the circulation, but I think they would have hunted down the nearest copper and pointed a trembling finger at our man.

Hey, who's not to say Jack wasn't doing a happy dance in the background while the coppers looked for clues and the public howled for his blood. But that Jack could not and would not have stopped murdering. How do you explain the cessation after Kelly?

Now, here I'm assuming you agree that Kelly was his last. If you don't, well then we have something else to discuss. I remember us discussing similar murders in South America. I think Jack went off his rocker after Kelly and either killed himself or someone put him where he couldn't kill again.

[♫anna♫]

How do you explain the btk killer stopping for over 10 years. This type of killer targets the community first and foremost and not the victims. They seem to have this ability to abstain for long periods!

[gabriel]

Feb 25, 2010 15:18:49 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

How do you explain the btk killer stopping for over 10 years. This type of killer targets the community first and foremost and not the victims. They seem to have this ability to abstain for long periods!

anna, I don't have any background knowledge about the btk murders.
So I can't really answer because it's an area I'm not familiar with.
I have some knowledge and ideas about Jack.

Common areas of human behaviour will not change, I agree. But the world changes around them and I don't think you can compare Jack to a killer 70-80 years later. You're looking at Jack as being a media savvy, literate individual wanting to shock the world. I think Jack could probably read but he wasn't rich or influential or trying to make people take notice of him.

anna, go back and look at the great videos you posted months ago.
Whitechapel was a dump in 1888. What would killing common pros on the streets earn him? Nothing. It released the violence in him, until the next time. And I think for a guy like Jack there would always be a next time. Unless he stopped himself or someone else did. I think that's what happened.

[♫anna♫]

Feb 26, 2010 7:29:24 GMT gabriel said:

Feb 25, 2010 15:18:49 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

How do you explain the btk killer stopping for over 10 years. This type of killer targets the community first and foremost and not the victims. They seem to have this ability to abstain for long periods!

anna, I don't have any background knowledge about the btk murders.
So I can't really answer because it's an area I'm not familiar with.
I have some knowledge and ideas about Jack.

Common areas of human behaviour will not change, I agree. But the world changes around them and I don't think you can compare Jack to a killer 70-80 years later. You're looking at Jack as being a media savvy, literate individual wanting to shock the world. I think Jack could probably read but he wasn't rich or influential or trying to make people take notice of him.

anna, go back and look at the great videos you posted months ago.
Whitechapel was a dump in 1888. What would killing common pros on the streets earn him? Nothing. It released the violence in him, until the next time. And I think for a guy like Jack there would always be a next time. Unless he stopped himself or someone else did. I think that's what happened.

Gabriel,
I certainly don't believe jtr was rich or influential! If he was he wouldn't have resided in Whitechapel. JMO, but i think the effects his murders had on the Whitechapel and surrounding communities were more of a long lasting thrill for him. I agree that if bloodlust, sadism, necrophilia were his main drives he would have been caught!

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that jtr didn't care if he got caught. He loved the danger he put himself in, but like a high risk gambler he did everything he could to better his chances and avoid getting caught in the act of murder. I believe he didn't focus his eyes much on his victim-except in the Kelly murder-and constantly glanced in every direction while he was strangling the women. Then he cut their throats staying out of the way of splattering blood. He glanced around more waiting for the blood pressure to drop before he began the disemboweling phase. I imagine only 30% of his attention was focused on the victims and the rest on his surroundings-again the Kelly case is the exception.

He was able to relive the murders through the attention and shock that went through the community and this dampened his need to strike again.. Like the typical psychopath he probably had the tendency to abuse alcohol and other substances, if available, but was sober when he murdered. After the Kelly murder he may have increased his consumption of intoxicating substances. He knew very well he'd end on the gallows, if he didn't stop. He never felt remorse though!

I'm sure modern day police would have been suspicious of George Hutchinson, who presented himself as a witness in the Kelly murder, but Victorian era police apparently couldn't imagine this possibility.

The decayed remains of jtr's dna are certainly underneath the fingernails of these strangled and long since buried girls, who tried to claw their way free of his vice like grip. If someday with a more advanced technology this dna could be located, isolated and reconstructed we'd be a step closer.There's probably at least a 50% chance though that jtr's legal name isn't on the list of suspects, but getting his dna would be a break.

[gabriel]

Feb 27, 2010 6:59:00 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Feb 26, 2010 7:29:24 GMT gabriel said:

anna, I don't have any background knowledge about the btk murders.
So I can't really answer because it's an area I'm not familiar with.
I have some knowledge and ideas about Jack.

Common areas of human behaviour will not change, I agree. But the world changes around them and I don't think you can compare Jack to a killer 70-80 years later. You're looking at Jack as being a media savvy, literate individual wanting to shock the world. I think Jack could probably read but he wasn't rich or influential or trying to make people take notice of him.

anna, go back and look at the great videos you posted months ago.
Whitechapel was a dump in 1888. What would killing common pros on the streets earn him? Nothing. It released the violence in him, until the next time. And I think for a guy like Jack there would always be a next time. Unless he stopped himself or someone else did. I think that's what happened.

Gabriel,
I certainly don't believe jtr was rich or influential! If he was he wouldn't have resided in Whitechapel. JMO, but i think the effects his murders had on the Whitechapel and surrounding communities were more of a long lasting thrill for him. I agree that if bloodlust, sadism, necrophilia were his main drives he would have been caught!

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that jtr didn't care if he got caught. He loved the danger he put himself in, but like a high risk gambler he did everything he could to better his chances and avoid getting caught in the act of murder. I believe he didn't focus his eyes much on his victim-except in the Kelly murder-and constantly glanced in every direction while he was strangling the women. Then he cut their throats staying out of the way of splattering blood. He glanced around more waiting for the blood pressure to drop before he began the disemboweling phase. I imagine only 30% of his attention was focused on the victims and the rest on his surroundings-again the Kelly case is the exception.

He was able to relive the murders through the attention and shock that went through the community and this dampened his need to strike again.. Like the typical psychopath he probably had the tendency to abuse alcohol and other substances, if available, but was sober when he murdered. After the Kelly murder he may have increased his consumption of intoxicating substances. He knew very well he'd end on the gallows, if he didn't stop. He never felt remorse though!

I'm sure modern day police would have been suspicious of George Hutchinson, who presented himself as a witness in the Kelly murder, but Victorian era police apparently couldn't imagine this possibility.

The decayed remains of jtr's dna are certainly underneath the fingernails of these strangled and long since buried girls, who tried to claw their way free of his vice like grip. If someday with a more advanced technology this dna could be located, isolated and reconstructed we'd be a step closer.There's probably at least a 50% chance though that jtr's legal name isn't on the list of suspects, but getting his dna would be a break.

anna that's OK. If you agreed with me, then we wouldn't have much of a debate. Yes, the the pros he killed were desperate but..why would they go off with a guy who was giving off strange vibes?

They weren't all falling over drunk. Eddowes had been on a bender but she'd had a few hours to sleep it off. Stride and Chapman had been drinking but they weren't falling down drunk. Kelly was worse for wear but not paralytic. The only one who could be described as really drunk was Nichols.

Jack had to be together enough to get them to go with him. Some reeling drunk, stinking to the eyeballs pot user would have had them scurrying away. I don't believe he was under the influence of anything except his own psychosis. He had to kill and he'd keep on killing until he stopped himself or someone else stopped him.

[♫anna♫]

Feb 27, 2010 7:40:40 GMT gabriel said:

Feb 27, 2010 6:59:00 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Gabriel,
I certainly don't believe jtr was rich or influential! If he was he wouldn't have resided in Whitechapel. JMO, but i think the effects his murders had on the Whitechapel and surrounding communities were more of a long lasting thrill for him. I agree that if bloodlust, sadism, necrophilia were his main drives he would have been caught!

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that jtr didn't care if he got caught. He loved the danger he put himself in, but like a high risk gambler he did everything he could to better his chances and avoid getting caught in the act of murder. I believe he didn't focus his eyes much on his victim-except in the Kelly murder-and constantly glanced in every direction while he was strangling the women. Then he cut their throats staying out of the way of splattering blood. He glanced around more waiting for the blood pressure to drop before he began the disemboweling phase. I imagine only 30% of his attention was focused on the victims and the rest on his surroundings-again the Kelly case is the exception.

He was able to relive the murders through the attention and shock that went through the community and this dampened his need to strike again.. Like the typical psychopath he probably had the tendency to abuse alcohol and other substances, if available, but was sober when he murdered. After the Kelly murder he may have increased his consumption of intoxicating substances. He knew very well he'd end on the gallows, if he didn't stop. He never felt remorse though!

I'm sure modern day police would have been suspicious of George Hutchinson, who presented himself as a witness in the Kelly murder, but Victorian era police apparently couldn't imagine this possibility.

The decayed remains of jtr's dna are certainly underneath the fingernails of these strangled and long since buried girls, who tried to claw their way free of his vice like grip. If someday with a more advanced technology this dna could be located, isolated and reconstructed we'd be a step closer.There's probably at least a 50% chance though that jtr's legal name isn't on the list of suspects, but getting his dna would be a break.

anna that's OK. If you agreed with me, then we wouldn't have much of a debate. Yes, the the pros he killed were desperate but..why would they go off with a guy who was giving off strange vibes?

They weren't all falling over drunk. Eddowes had been on a bender but she'd had a few hours to sleep it off. Stride and Chapman had been drinking but they weren't falling down drunk. Kelly was worse for wear but not paralytic. The only one who could be described as really drunk was Nichols.

Jack had to be together enough to get them to go with him. Some reeling drunk, stinking to the eyeballs pot user would have had them scurrying away. I don't believe he was under the influence of anything except his own psychosis. He had to kill and he'd keep on killing until he stopped himself or someone else stopped him.

Again jtr was a "show man". For Whitechapel he was relatively well dressed. He may have stolen or swindled a gold chain, if we accept Hutchinson as a legitimate witness. Psychopaths aren't psychotic! They have no conscience, inner conflicts, etc. and are good manipulators. The women wouldn't have seen past the fassade. He most likely wasn't an unfamilar face.

jtr could have developed an appetite for sadism. I still think Chapman is the most probable suspect on the list..say a 25% chance of being jtr. Psychopaths like to try new drugs, new kicks.
They constantly seek thrills and sensations because they have nothing "spiritual" about them.

[gabriel]

anna, for Whitechapel he was reasonably well dressed? Do you really think some bloke with any reasonable clothes or jewellery would have made it unscathed walking through the East End? These people had nothing - no clothes, no shelter, no food, no hope. You really think some dude with a tie pin, cravat, astrakhan coat would have made it out minus all of that? And without a belt up just to let him know who he was dealing with?

Jack was a psycopath but he wasn't stupid.

[♫anna♫]

Feb 28, 2010 6:58:31 GMT gabriel said:

anna, for Whitechapel he was reasonably well dressed? Do you really think some bloke with any reasonable clothes or jewellery would have made it unscathed walking through the East End? These people had nothing - no clothes, no shelter, no food, no hope. You really think some dude with a tie pin, cravat, astrakhan coat would have made it out minus all of that? And without a belt up just to let him know who he was dealing with?

Jack was a psycopath but he wasn't stupid.

You do have some valid points Gabriel!
Yeah Whitechapel was a bad place, especially after dark. Outsiders knew well enough to avoid this impoverished hellhole. Scratch Druitt, Tumblety, the Royal Princes and a whole bunch of other well dressed outsiders from the suspect list for the reason you gave. jtr was a WhiteChapel resident and street wise. Hutchinson's claim that a man with a gold chain was with Mary Kelly does arouse my curiousity, but Hutchinson, if he wasn't a good citizen doing his civic duty could also fit into the "attention seeking psychopath" type that i believe jtr was. I would scratch Dury from the list because he was a non-Whitechapel resident too and probably too stupid to get away.

I also believe jtr was familar with the rounds that the police made to successfully escape capture in the Mitra Square murder. These vigilance groups which worked with the police during the night would be aware of the rounds that the police made. Of course it's speculation, but jtr could have been close to George Lusk, the president of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, and one of his "patrollers". If he was caught in the act he could always claim he chased jtr away and was holding the knife because he felt it was wrong to leave it sticking in the victim.

Of course we can only speculate. Without dna evidence that's the best we can do!

[gabriel]

You do have some valid points Gabriel!
Yeah Whitechapel was a bad place, especially after dark. Outsiders knew well enough to avoid this impoverished hellhole. Scratch Druitt, Tumblety, the Royal Princes and a whole bunch of other well dressed outsiders from the suspect list for the reason you gave. jtr was a WhiteChapel resident and street wise. Hutchinson's claim that a man with a gold chain was with Mary Kelly does arouse my curiousity, but Hutchinson, if he wasn't a good citizen doing his civic duty could also fit into the "attention seeking psychopath" type that i believe jtr was. I would scratch Dury from the list because he was a non-Whitechapel resident too and probably too stupid to get away.

I also believe jtr was familar with the rounds that the police made to successfully escape capture in the Mitra Square murder. These vigilance groups which worked with the police during the night would be aware of the rounds that the police made. Of course it's speculation, but jtr could have been close to George Lusk, the president of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, and one of his "patrollers". If he was caught in the act he could always claim he chased jtr away and was holding the knife because he felt it was wrong to leave it sticking in the victim.

Of course we can only speculate. Without dna evidence that's the best we can do![/quote]

I'm gonna think you mean Druitt when you say Drury. Well, at least you finally agree Tumblety wasn't Jack. That's good.

I hope I make some reasonable points. I try to. And you do too anna. I read everything you say and I take it on board.

Close to Lusk and the Vigilance Comm. Well, actually, that's an idea I've never heard of before. Jack out prowling with the guys prowling for him.

H'm. I don't really think so but what's your theory?

[♫anna♫]

Feb 28, 2010 10:05:01 GMT gabriel said:

You do have some valid points Gabriel!
Yeah Whitechapel was a bad place, especially after dark. Outsiders knew well enough to avoid this impoverished hellhole. Scratch Druitt, Tumblety, the Royal Princes and a whole bunch of other well dressed outsiders from the suspect list for the reason you gave. jtr was a WhiteChapel resident and street wise. Hutchinson's claim that a man with a gold chain was with Mary Kelly does arouse my curiousity, but Hutchinson, if he wasn't a good citizen doing his civic duty could also fit into the "attention seeking psychopath" type that i believe jtr was. I would scratch Dury from the list because he was a non-Whitechapel resident too and probably too stupid to get away.

I also believe jtr was familar with the rounds that the police made to successfully escape capture in the Mitra Square murder. These vigilance groups which worked with the police during the night would be aware of the rounds that the police made. Of course it's speculation, but jtr could have been close to George Lusk, the president of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, and one of his "patrollers". If he was caught in the act he could always claim he chased jtr away and was holding the knife because he felt it was wrong to leave it sticking in the victim.

Of course we can only speculate. Without dna evidence that's the best we can do!

I'm gonna think you mean Druitt when you say Drury. Well, at least you finally agree Tumblety wasn't Jack. That's good.

I hope I make some reasonable points. I try to. And you do too anna. I read everything you say and I take it on board.

Close to Lusk and the Vigilance Comm. Well, actually, that's an idea I've never heard of before. Jack out prowling with the guys prowling for him.

H'm. I don't really think so but what's your theory?[/quote]

Top of the morning Gabe!
I misspelled Bury as Dury! A suspect Trubble presented here
( biglinmarshall.proboards.com/inde....read=804&page=9 ). A homicidal mean drunk! I think jtr was void of passionate emotions as psychopaths are. Bury had explosive passions, an alcohol problem and wasn't psychopathic! A "Bury" could have never got away with the Mitre Square murder. JMO, but that's like saying an elephant wandered through Whitechapel and no one noticed.

I NEVER thought Tumblety was a serious suspect and all my posts here argue against him being the ripper! I did post a series of YouTube videos that nonsensically frames him in the end as the ripper-and i only posted them because Chapman was studied also.

I respectfully disagree with your belief that jtr had some deep rooted hatred for prostitutes or women in general. Hate and love are intense emotions alien to a psychopath. I believe jtr like most serial killers didn't have anything personal against his victims and they didn't represent his "abusive mother", "hostile wife", etc.. I also disagree with your belief that he would "explode" and have to kill, regardless of his surroundings.
His motive was simply to express "evil" and shock the community, as was the case with the btk killer.

This killer is like the arsonist, who will help the firefighters or the kidnapper, who will join the search groups looking for his victim. A profile that modern era police are very familar with, but inconceivable for the Victorian era police.

The Mitre Square murder was probably the climax for this type of killer. The prostitutes were simply easier targets because they were approachable and possibly a deranged psychopathic sense of humor played a role, like who would volunteer for an obscene public demonstration? OK! You asked for it!

The murders were done in a cold blooded fashion. Strangulation, then severing the throat in the manner you so accurately described a few posts back and jtr avoided being sprayed with blood! Was he right handed? Left handed? Agile with both hands?

Next i believe he either withdrew into the shadows or at Mitre square he possibly took a short walk. He knew the victim needed to lose blood and the heart had to stop before he started the disemboweling phase so as not to get splattered with blood. In Mitre square no one took notice of the lady lying on the square and so he calmly returned to his victim and began the disemboweling phase. He removed and placed the intestines over the right shoulder of Mrs. Eddowes who was lying face up, suggesting that the ripper was left handed, but quite likely he intentionally placed the intestines on the right side so that his right hand could freely mutilate Mrs. Eddowes face without being smeared by the intestines.

The Mary Kelly murder is more difficult to reconstruct. What puzzles me is that jtr closed the door and locked it after he left. My guess of jtr would probably have him leaving the door wide open, but that wasn't the case here. What happened? His cold logic was making him aware that he was losing his discipline and starting to focus too much on the murder, instead of the surroundings, and he would end up on the gallows, if he didn't stop.

jtr wasn't "psychotic"! He didn't have hallucinations. He was an evil criminal, who followed a cold evil thrill seeking logic and defied the odds. I know it's not "scientific" to believe in the existence of "evil", but it exists! My firm conviction. Evil is also addictive! Why didn't jtr repeat after the Kelly murder? His prime victim was society and in particular the Whitechapel community! The prostitutes were nothing more than the instruments of an evil grafitti artist. Like the btk killer he could abstain from striking again for decades because the community constantly relived his murders. The life expectancy in Whitechapel wasn't that long and maybe he found another kick like alcohol abuse and faded away.