Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JTR = rolling stone that gathered no moss

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JTR = rolling stone that gathered no moss

    One mystery of JTR is that he resided in very crowded areas and yet no one recognized nor remembered him. Perhaps we can use our everyday experience to understand this. Throughout our lives we meet countless people, and some are just more memorable than others, while some are less so. Some are so unmemorable that it is hard for you to remember them. You may meet them and talk to them on occasion, but they may not engage you in conversations at all, may not make proper eye contacts, may speak in unengaging tone, and most importantly, may not convey any emotional connection in human encounters. We call this "rolling stones that gather no moss", and JTR might have been the same way. He might not have intentionally shied away from people. But he might have failed to engage others because he lacked the social skills to do so. He might have even seemed normal instead of appearing obviously mad, which would have gained him people's attention. He was unlikely to be assertive in conversations, thus unlikely to upset anyone. Some might have even thought him harmless as a result. In short, JTR might have been unexceptional and unmemorable in every way to the point of being transparent, invisible, and ignored by others. Of course, some of us like solitude. But ironically, I believe the Ripper did not. Being transparent, invisible, and ignored by everyone might have fueled his resentment towards society. But it might also have gained him the anonymity he needed to do his deeds. Thus, we have all the ingredients of JTR: unsociable, invisible, seemingly harmless, and yet resentful, which might have led to hatred.
    Last edited by YomRippur; 09-12-2016, 04:56 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by YomRippur View Post
    One mystery of JTR is that he resided in very crowded areas and yet no one recognized nor remembered him. Perhaps we can use our everyday experience to understand this. Throughout our lives we meet countless people, and some are just more memorable than others, while some are less so. Some are so unmemorable that it is hard for you to remember them. You may meet them and talk to them on occasion, but they may not engage you in conversations at all, may not make proper eye contacts, may speak in unengaging tone, and most importantly, may not convey any emotional connection in human encounters. We call this "rolling stones that gather no moss", and JTR might have been the same way. He might not have intentionally shied away from people. But he might have failed to engage others because he lacked the social skills to do so. He might have even seemed normal instead of appearing obviously mad, which would have gained him people's attention. He was unlikely to be assertive in conversations, thus unlikely to upset anyone. Some might have even thought him harmless as a result. In short, JTR might have been unexceptional and unmemorable in every way to the point of being transparent, invisible, and ignored by others. Of course, some of us like solitude. But ironically, I believe the Ripper did not. Being transparent, invisible, and ignored by everyone might have fueled his resentment towards society. But it might also have gained him the anonymity he needed to do his deeds. Thus, we have all the ingredients of JTR: unsociable, invisible, seemingly harmless, and yet resentful, which might have led to hatred.

    Save we have no idea where he lived.
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by GUT View Post
      Save we have no idea where he lived.
      He probably never told that to anyone. Or perhaps he did but no one remembered, because no one cared. He was the sort of person that people didn't really pay attention to for one reason or another. There were likely warning signs, of course, but no one noticed. Some of the most heinous killers in history were the same way.

      Comment


      • #4
        We do have one clue as to where the Ripper lived: the location of the apron relative to the Eddowes murder scene. He was fleeing into Whitechapel.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
          We do have one clue as to where the Ripper lived: the location of the apron relative to the Eddowes murder scene. He was fleeing into Whitechapel.
          Maybe, or smart enough to mislead, or killer didn't drop it there or....
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GUT View Post
            Maybea, or smart enough to mislead
            That's what I reckon.

            Red herring of sorts.
            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

            Comment


            • #7
              Having posted what I posted earlier, I'm naturally inclined to think that the killer was probably too much of a simpleton to try to outwit others, or do other clever things such as coming up with the clever moniker "Jack the Ripper", etc. The half-illiterate Goulston Street message was probably his work. The alleged medical skill was probably nonexistent. Sending out a kidney would probably be too flamboyant an act for a meek person like that. In a way, he probably realized he didn't really need to mislead others because he knew he would be ignored by others, as he had been used to that all his life.

              P.S. JTR might have been someone like the character played by Elisha Cook Jr. in the film "The Maltese Falcon", a mousy, meek character with pent-up frustration, deemed harmless by others, and yet he is responsible for the most number of murders in the film!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by YomRippur View Post
                Having posted what I posted earlier, I'm naturally inclined to think that the killer was probably too much of a simpleton to try to outwit others, or do other clever things such as coming up with the clever moniker "Jack the Ripper", etc. The half-illiterate Goulston Street message was probably his work. The alleged medical skill was probably nonexistent. Sending out a kidney would probably be too flamboyant an act for a meek person like that. In a way, he probably realized he didn't really need to mislead others because he knew he would be ignored by others, as he had been used to that all his life.

                P.S. JTR might have been someone like the character played by Elisha Cook Jr. in the film "The Maltese Falcon", a mousy, meek character with pent-up frustration, deemed harmless by others, and yet he is responsible for the most number of murders in the film!
                appearing meek- perhaps. simpleton? no way.
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  appearing meek- perhaps. simpleton? no way.
                  Or rather, he might have given others the impression of being a simpleton via the way he appeared, talked, and behaved. Many heinous criminals in history had similar characteristics. A few years ago in Ohio, Ariel Castro was arrested for having kidnapped, imprisoned, and sexually molested three women for over a decade, and even beat a pregnant woman until she miscarriaged. And once again, this brutal monster looked like a mousy little man.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by YomRippur View Post
                    Or rather, he might have given others the impression of being a simpleton via the way he appeared, talked, and behaved. Many heinous criminals in history had similar characteristics. A few years ago in Ohio, Ariel Castro was arrested for having kidnapped, imprisoned, and sexually molested three women for over a decade, and even beat a pregnant woman until she miscarriaged. And once again, this brutal monster looked like a mousy little man.
                    Hi yom
                    I might agree with that, Many of the witnesses describe him as short, but some also say and stout. Which would describe a powerfully built man. Personally I take this view as the killer must have been pretty strong too subdue the victims so quickly.

                    Re simpleton. Again I could definitely see he might portray himself as a simpleton to the people around him. But IMHO he must have been highly intelligent, street smart and crafty.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      Hi yom
                      I might agree with that, Many of the witnesses describe him as short, but some also say and stout. Which would describe a powerfully built man. Personally I take this view as the killer must have been pretty strong too subdue the victims so quickly.

                      Re simpleton. Again I could definitely see he might portray himself as a simpleton to the people around him. But IMHO he must have been highly intelligent, street smart and crafty.
                      I wouldn't give as much credit to his strength and intelligence. Except Mary Kelly, his victims were not the healthiest nor youngest people (not to mention, they could have been drunken and/or sleep-deprived when they met the killer).

                      The killer apparently knew the local areas well, but then *maybe not*. Some of the murder sites were less than ideal, such as Buck's Row (wide open street), Dutfield's Yard (next to a club), and Mitre Square (a relatively exposed area patrolled by multiple PCs). Someone with better local knowledge might have been able to pick safer locations. So my belief is, yes, he had local knowledge, but maybe it wasn't that good. This may support the notion that he was a foreigner, specifically a relatively recent immigrant, who might not have been totally familiar with the area. The shouting of "Lipski" could be crucial in determining when he moved to Whitechapel, for the murder case of Israel Lipski occurred in the fall of 1887. He was probably already in England in 1887 to have heard about Lipski.

                      As to intelligence, if you are alluding to the way he never aroused suspicion from his victims, then again, his victims were some of the most unfortunate people in the area who were probably willing to risk their lives to get a few shillings from anyone. As to the way he eluded capture, it was more his luck than his intelligence.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by YomRippur View Post
                        I wouldn't give as much credit to his strength and intelligence. Except Mary Kelly, his victims were not the healthiest nor youngest people (not to mention, they could have been drunken and/or sleep-deprived when they met the killer).

                        The killer apparently knew the local areas well, but then *maybe not*. Some of the murder sites were less than ideal, such as Buck's Row (wide open street), Dutfield's Yard (next to a club), and Mitre Square (a relatively exposed area patrolled by multiple PCs). Someone with better local knowledge might have been able to pick safer locations. So my belief is, yes, he had local knowledge, but maybe it wasn't that good. This may support the notion that he was a foreigner, specifically a relatively recent immigrant, who might not have been totally familiar with the area. The shouting of "Lipski" could be crucial in determining when he moved to Whitechapel, for the murder case of Israel Lipski occurred in the fall of 1887. He was probably already in England in 1887 to have heard about Lipski.

                        As to intelligence, if you are alluding to the way he never aroused suspicion from his victims, then again, his victims were some of the most unfortunate people in the area who were probably willing to risk their lives to get a few shillings from anyone. As to the way he eluded capture, it was more his luck than his intelligence.
                        Or maybe he knew the area VERY well. Like maybe when the police beats came through the areas. And if he let his victims lead him to their spots, he relied on there expertice as to when you could get several minutes of privacy. Sounds like a smart guy to me. Street smart.

                        Re being a recent foreigner. I doubt it as no witness described a man with an accent, and I'm sure at least one or two of them actually saw the ripper.

                        Re lipski. As it was used as a racial slur I'm sure the broad shouldered man that Yelled it at the "heavy Jewish appearance" Schwartz was a local Englishman , that yes, obviously lived in the area well prior to 1887, but no absolutely NOT a foreigner. Also, A foreigner would not have written the GSG-which I Beleive even you think is authentic and written by a whitechapel gentile.

                        And yes the women were drunk, except maybe stride, but they were also street smart, tough survivors. Not the barely clinging to life weaklings you portray.
                        Either way, he must have still been a strong man. Do you know how hard it is to kill someone with your bare hands? Even someone smaller and weaker than you, I would imagine it would still take a strong person.

                        And as for your last sentence, I totally disagree. He was smart enough to ruse women into accompany him to a private place for prostitution, even at the height of the ripper scare, to be perceptive enough to get out of the situation, most of the time seemingly in the nick of time before being caught in the act, and to never have been caught by police despite the police force trying to cath him as well as most of the public and various vigilance committees.

                        Sure he was lucky, but smart people make there own luck.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GUT View Post
                          Save we have no idea where he lived.
                          I would put him in the "wicked quarter mile", not far from Commercial Street and Whitechapel Road.

                          Every women killed, not only the canonical five, but if you go as far as Emily Horsnell, and include Millwood, Smith and Tabram, at the time of their death, lived 100 feet from the intersection.

                          He stalked them from home.
                          The only exception being Eddowes, but JtR, running away from the "failed" attack on Stride got away from the Met's jurisdiction, and when seeing Eddowes getting out of the Police Station, he couldn't help himself.
                          Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
                          - Stanislaw Jerzy Lee

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            Or maybe he knew the area VERY well. Like maybe when the police beats came through the areas. And if he let his victims lead him to their spots, he relied on there expertice as to when you could get several minutes of privacy. Sounds like a smart guy to me. Street smart.

                            Re being a recent foreigner. I doubt it as no witness described a man with an accent, and I'm sure at least one or two of them actually saw the ripper.

                            Re lipski. As it was used as a racial slur I'm sure the broad shouldered man that Yelled it at the "heavy Jewish appearance" Schwartz was a local Englishman , that yes, obviously lived in the area well prior to 1887, but no absolutely NOT a foreigner. Also, A foreigner would not have written the GSG-which I Beleive even you think is authentic and written by a whitechapel gentile.

                            And yes the women were drunk, except maybe stride, but they were also street smart, tough survivors. Not the barely clinging to life weaklings you portray.
                            Either way, he must have still been a strong man. Do you know how hard it is to kill someone with your bare hands? Even someone smaller and weaker than you, I would imagine it would still take a strong person.

                            And as for your last sentence, I totally disagree. He was smart enough to ruse women into accompany him to a private place for prostitution, even at the height of the ripper scare, to be perceptive enough to get out of the situation, most of the time seemingly in the nick of time before being caught in the act, and to never have been caught by police despite the police force trying to cath him as well as most of the public and various vigilance committees.

                            Sure he was lucky, but smart people make there own luck.
                            Rather than "tough survivors", I'm afraid these desolate women were the most vulnerable people in Whitechapel who tended to be beaten, raped, assaulted to the point they no longer cared and went back out to the streets every night. One of the victims was even dying from tuberculosis, and some victims might have had venereal diseases. The killer wouldn't need much street smarts to take advantage of them. The killer picked them because they were readily accessible, and this doesn't say much about his intelligence. I think many would agree that he had average intelligence at best.

                            To your point of the Ripper killing with his bare hands, note that some victims didn't show any sign of having been killed by strangulation. And we know the Ripper's main weapon was not his hands, but his knife.

                            As far as the killer's accent, the longest sentence allegedly spoken by the Ripper was, "You'll be alright for what I've told you." But maybe the eyewitness (Hutchinson) heard it from a distance away. Also, the killer could still have spoken good English while not being a local man if he had come from other parts of England or other English-speaking territories.

                            Some serial killers do have a nomadic nature, notably Ted Bundy. It's still possible that the Ripper hadn't been in Whitechapel for long and/or didn't stay for long, especially with the relatively low number of killings done in a short period of time.

                            Regarding the Goulston Street writing, it might not be as clear an indication of whether the writer was a Jew or gentile, as the message was rather vague in the sense that it could be a message defending Jews or accusing Jews, or perhaps some other meanings. In other words, the message could've been written by anyone. It could've been a Jew defending his own kind, a gentile incriminating Jews, or a foreigner with inadequate English skills and this unable to write clearly what he meant.

                            Also, the killer could have been a non-Jewish foreigner too.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by YomRippur View Post
                              Rather than "tough survivors", I'm afraid these desolate women were the most vulnerable people in Whitechapel who tended to be beaten, raped, assaulted to the point they no longer cared and went back out to the streets every night. One of the victims was even dying from tuberculosis, and some victims might have had venereal diseases. The killer wouldn't need much street smarts to take advantage of them. The killer picked them because they were readily accessible, and this doesn't say much about his intelligence. I think many would agree that he had average intelligence at best.

                              To your point of the Ripper killing with his bare hands, note that some victims didn't show any sign of having been killed by strangulation. And we know the Ripper's main weapon was not his hands, but his knife.

                              As far as the killer's accent, the longest sentence allegedly spoken by the Ripper was, "You'll be alright for what I've told you." But maybe the eyewitness (Hutchinson) heard it from a distance away. Also, the killer could still have spoken good English while not being a local man if he had come from other parts of England or other English-speaking territories.

                              Some serial killers do have a nomadic nature, notably Ted Bundy. It's still possible that the Ripper hadn't been in Whitechapel for long and/or didn't stay for long, especially with the relatively low number of killings done in a short period of time.

                              Regarding the Goulston Street writing, it might not be as clear an indication of whether the writer was a Jew or gentile, as the message was rather vague in the sense that it could be a message defending Jews or accusing Jews, or perhaps some other meanings. In other words, the message could've been written by anyone. It could've been a Jew defending his own kind, a gentile incriminating Jews, or a foreigner with inadequate English skills and this unable to write clearly what he meant.

                              Also, the killer could have been a non-Jewish foreigner too.
                              Hi Yom
                              Rather than "tough survivors", I'm afraid these desolate women were the most vulnerable people in Whitechapel who tended to be beaten, raped, assaulted to the point they no longer cared and went back out to the streets every night. One of the victims was even dying from tuberculosis, and some victims might have had venereal diseases. The killer wouldn't need much street smarts to take advantage of them. The killer picked them because they were readily accessible, and this doesn't say much about his intelligence. I think many would agree that he had average intelligence at best.
                              Yes they were vulnerable- as are all prostitutes. its the nature of the beast. but they were also the type of women who got in fights, scammed people, robbed their punters etc. I think they were most vulnerable because of the inebriation, not just who they were.

                              also, take an example from the natural world-predators often target the smallest and weakest of the herd. but does that mean they are small and weak themselves? whens the last time you saw a meek weak jaguar. hunter predators also tend to be intelligent.


                              To your point of the Ripper killing with his bare hands, note that some victims didn't show any sign of having been killed by strangulation. And we know the Ripper's main weapon was not his hands, but his knife.
                              the ones who didn't show signs of strangulation, showed signs of possibly being punched in the head. and you still need to be strong and quick to kill and mutilate someone with a knife. and subdue a person. many of the witnesses describe a stout man-as in powerfully built like a wrestler.

                              As far as the killer's accent, the longest sentence allegedly spoken by the Ripper was, "You'll be alright for what I've told you." But maybe the eyewitness (Hutchinson) heard it from a distance away. Also, the killer could still have spoken good English while not being a local man if he had come from other parts of England or other English-speaking territories.

                              all the witness needed to hear would be a couple of words to notice an accent.

                              And no-someone from a English speaking territory would still have a noticeable accent.


                              Some serial killers do have a nomadic nature, notably Ted Bundy. It's still possible that the Ripper hadn't been in Whitechapel for long and/or didn't stay for long, especially with the relatively low number of killings done in a short period of time.
                              I think the ripper must have been in the area for at least two years beforw his killing spree, he knew those streets like the back of his hand.

                              Regarding the Goulston Street writing, it might not be as clear an indication of whether the writer was a Jew or gentile, as the message was rather vague in the sense that it could be a message defending Jews or accusing Jews, or perhaps some other meanings. In other words, the message could've been written by anyone. It could've been a Jew defending his own kind, a gentile incriminating Jews, or a foreigner with inadequate English skills and this unable to write clearly what he meant.
                              I think most people read it as a non jew trying to throw suspicion on a jew. Abberline and most of the police did.

                              May I ask who your favored suspect is and does he fit your ideas you've been pushing here? chapman perhaps?
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X