So who was Jack the Ripper.

[Ben]

Hi Frank,

Yes, I subscribe to the "somewhere in the middle" view too, although when it came to inveigling women into private locations, it could be inferred from the Lawende and Long sightings that he was at least partially adept on that score, without needing to be especially "charming". Bizarre and grusome serials are very often committed by emotionally haphazard offenders such as Fish or Gein, but then along comes the occasional turd in the shape of Andrei Chikatilo who managed to combine horrific mutilations with an organized approach.

Hope all's well with you!

Ben

[DVV]

Thanks for your frank and detailed reply Joel.
I have much to object, but that would be unecessary and unfair - all these objections being scattered here on various discussions, as we are both well aware.
I will just point out your idea about the killers knowing each other. Let alone the matter of study, and with all due respect for your research, it seems to me a good starting point for a novel.
Merci encore,
Amitiés
David

[FrankO]

Hi Ben,

The high-risk circumstances were very possibly beyond his control. Far from being an impulsive disorganized sort, I think there's a stronger argument for a more organized offender making the most of what limited options he had available; options that might have precluded private accomodation in which to dispatch his victims and conceal them there. If true, it would put in a similar category to Bundy, Rader, Ridgway etc and quite conceivably capable of "stalling" for prolonged periods.

I never said I believe the Ripper to have been impulsive and disorganised, and I never will. On the other hand, I don't believe him to have been on the other side of the scale: a cool and cunning psychopath, who meticulously planned everything. I think he was somewhere in the middle, who approached things from a practical point of view. I don't believe he thought much, if at all, about how to get a woman alone in some private place, which is what I do believe killers like Rader did and do. He just followed his need and went with what he had close at hand and made the best of that. So, he settled for high-risk. This, the short time-span and the 'bizarness' of his murders make me think he shouldn't be put in a similar category as Rader, Bundy or the Zodiac. But that's just me.

All the best,
Frank

[joelhall]

Hi Joel,
Can you tell us a little bit more? How many killers? Have you at least in mind a couple or group of victims being killed by the same hand or not?
Amitiés,
D

i can certainly tell you some

i find it hard to believe any of the victims were killed by the same person at present. its not possible for me to say how many killers i think there were at present either, as i am still studying facts of the other murders around the time.

it seems obvious that there were at least 2 killers from the witness accounts, and, if no two women were killed by the same man, then at least 5 or 6, depending who was included. though as i say i cant comment just yet as its only a working theory (though logical), so id rather not say for the rest 'this is what i think happened' without being mostly certain.

if of course i think theres something in it (and id rather not say too much at present without good evidential odds and lack of in depth study of some aspects of the area at the time, until im sure). if not then ill abandon it like so many others which have left me less than convinced.

but for now i will state that i currently think:

all the victims were killed by different persons.

the killers knew each other.

the victims did not nor did they know the killers (or vice-versa).

the picking of victims was opportunistic, though they always went for the easiest prey.

everything else is pretty loose at the moment, just as it is most likely as a working hypothesis, and no doubt this will change as time goes on. i will not say i believe anything to be true (yep, im indecisive ), until i follow my usual chain, which is...

examine the main evidence.

look at the most likely chain of events.

examine thoroughly all the first hand evidence and find back-up for the theory.

spend yonks trying to disprove my own theory so that it holds water. (as it happens all theories ive looked at so far ive seen alot of doubt in, so ive cast them aside, in the vain hope that new evidence ever shows up to support them.)

then if i see it is good enough ill write it up. this current belief comes from a few years of studying for some wm books i had in mind to write (never with any suspect in mind however). i should note that its doubtful ill positively id the killers. not only is it difficult (due to illness) for me to travel and examine things (though i wouldnt say no to help later on if theres something in it), if my theory is correct this time its doubtful anyone could uncover the real names of the criminals anyway. of course when i delve deeper, names could come to light, possibly including already known suspects. fact is i have no idea at present.

lastly, if it does seem to carry some weight, youll all be the first to hear about it. plus id appreciate a few people to read through the final draft to pick holes in it, before anyone else reads it .

joel

[DVV]

Hi Joel,
Can you tell us a little bit more? How many killers? Have you at least in mind a couple or group of victims being killed by the same hand or not?
Amitiés,
D

[joelhall]

I have mentioned this point before, possibly on the old boards, but I'll risk raising it again - there is a lot of talk about why the killings stopped suddenly (if you accpet Kelly as the last victim) but equally compelling to me is when/why they started and why the 'spree' was completed in a realtively short period of time. Looking at the C5, it appears that the killer's appetite for violence did in fact increase (except for Stride) with each killing but did it just start with Nichols or was there a period during which his violence was reatively low key? After Kelly, was his violence spent or did he go elsewhere? Was he apprehended for another serious crime and meet his death on the end opf an executioner's rope?

What I am exploring is why and how a killer with such violent tendencies expended this violence over a short period of time, starting with an extremely horrific attack and ending with the horror of Miller's Court. Is this possible?

If you think not, then perhaps that leads to theories such as the C5 group not having been killed by the same killer at all, or possibly there being one killer who was attacking women before and after Nichols and Kelly, may be in a different location.

im not afraid to admit that i do not personally believe that they were all killed by the same person. i think they were a series but not the work of a serial killer.

joel

[DVV]

Nothing about statistics, but I think there are many posters here who see Tabram as a ripper victim and Millwood and Wilson's cases as possible ripper's "coups d'essai".
Why and when the murders ended seems to me a quite different matter.
Amitiés
DVV

[Limehouse]

I have mentioned this point before, possibly on the old boards, but I'll risk raising it again - there is a lot of talk about why the killings stopped suddenly (if you accpet Kelly as the last victim) but equally compelling to me is when/why they started and why the 'spree' was completed in a realtively short period of time. Looking at the C5, it appears that the killer's appetite for violence did in fact increase (except for Stride) with each killing but did it just start with Nichols or was there a period during which his violence was reatively low key? After Kelly, was his violence spent or did he go elsewhere? Was he apprehended for another serious crime and meet his death on the end opf an executioner's rope?

What I am exploring is why and how a killer with such violent tendencies expended this violence over a short period of time, starting with an extremely horrific attack and ending with the horror of Miller's Court. Is this possible?

If you think not, then perhaps that leads to theories such as the C5 group not having been killed by the same killer at all, or possibly there being one killer who was attacking women before and after Nichols and Kelly, may be in a different location.

[dougie]

No physical evidence for sure, but to me ,Druitt is the one suspect on the list,whos presence has never been satisfactorily explained.I think there is "reason to believe" unfortunately I ,and it appears no-one else knows exactly what that reason is.Family "gossip" and suicide date I feel ,isnt the total sum of the evidence that ,it seems, convinced Macnaughton.For some reason Druitt is no longer regarded as "fashionable" amongst most.....I think that is a mistake.
regards

[Ben]

Hi Frank,

The high-risk circumstances were very possibly beyond his control. Far from being an impulsive disorganized sort, I think there's a stronger argument for a more organized offender making the most of what limited options he had available; options that might have precluded private accomodation in which to dispatch his victims and conceal them there. If true, it would put in a similar category to Bundy, Rader, Ridgway etc and quite conceivably capable of "stalling" for prolonged periods.

Best regards,
Ben

... trashmen in the East End of 1888? You kidding?

Are you kidding ???





Colin

[Red Zeppelin]

Let me just say, that regardless of what one might think of Barnett as the perpetrator in the Kelly murder, I have never seen any reason to ever suspect him of being Jack the Ripper. In short, there is simply no evidence that even suggests such a thing,

You can just as well say the same for any of the named suspects. There is no 'real' evidence for any of them. It's all supposition and speculation. Barnett has no less evidence against him than every other suspect discussed here.

[Red Zeppelin]

Apparently my scratch profile a few posts ago of the Whitechapel Murderer fits Barnett according to some, but it wasn't intended to fit any named suspect.

Nevertheless, despite your reasonings/gut feelings that Barnett wasn't the murderer, without realising it your scratch profile fits Barnett quite nicely and certainly moreso than any other named suspect.

You have to admit, that's quite interesting.

[FrankO]

Hi Ben,

It needn't have been a conscious decision to stop permamently. Serial killers are, however, quite capable of "pausing" for prolonged periods of time. Incapacitated or incarcerated he may have been eventually, but it needn't have occured right after the Miller's Court murder.

I agree that, if he stopped permanently, it very unlikely was his conscious decision to do so. I know that serial killers in general are capable of 'pausing' for prolonged periods of time, but that's not what I am talking about. I'm talking about the Ripper specifically here. Although he seems to have taken some simple precautions not to get caught and, to a certain extent, to have been in control of himself and the situation at hand, he strikes me as an impulsive murderer rather than a cool planner. Considering that he killed 3 women in only 1 month and under high-risk circumstances, I just wonder if such a murderer would have been able to stop of his own volition for a period longer than, say, half a year. I see killers like Rader, Bundy and the Zodiac as different, certainly in this respect.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Natalie/Norma,

The reason I have doubts about him being a "local" is that not only the women most obviously in danger but everyone in the East End was on the look out for him.So if he was local in the sense of living there,various "neighbours" would have reported it---in fact we know they did report on their neighbours. Anyone checking in new lodgings would have raised alarm too and if the newcomer began acting at all suspiciously ,someone somewhere would have reported it.

It's my impression that generally everyone who stood out risked being brought under the attention of the police - local or not. Obviously, strangers would stand out easier than locals. Wouldn't the logical 'solution' then be that The Ripper was someone who just didn't stand out and was quite probably local?

What is particularly surprising is that the prostitutes didnt appear to "know" him, and this was true as much at the time as afterwards when the murders had stopped.

It has never appeared to me like that. As far as I'm concerned, the prostitutes may actually have known him, they may only have known him by sight, or they may not have known him at all. There's nothing to particularly point in a certain direction.

I often wonder if this is what happened regarding Kate.Highly aroused still and hotfoot from Berner Street ,he saw Kate leading her mister into Mitre Square and went straight to the secret spot he had for himself to wait and watch there and when her" liaison" was over and the man had moved off he pounced before Katehad time to rearrange her five skirts and three pockets!

This scenario would even lessen the relatively little time the Ripper had at his disposal to do what he did to Eddowes.

All the best,
Frank