Gary Ridgway and Jack killed prostitutes

[jc007]

Ben, how do you know that option wasn't available to him, someone like bundy went out of his way to make up stories to lure his victims away to seclusion. I'm sure if Jacks obsession was in some way related to Bundys then Jack would of found someway of luring his victims further away, there is nothing out of place for a client to be walking away somewhere with a prostitue so if he wanted to lure them somewhere more private he could have, my point again which you clearly ignored is that the nature of the kill besides the fact the abdominal region was attacked does not assume he was getting a great deal of pleasure out of it. Killing someone clearly out in the open and in a extremely swift manner does not resemble someone who is gaing a great deal of pleasure out of what he is doing, unlike other sexual serial killers who kill in seclusion with alot more time on thier hands and with a lot less risk being caught.

[CraigInTwinCities]

Dan, i really can't fathom why just because Jack killed prostitutes and targeted thier abdominal region (and head too in some cases) that it automatically makes this a sexual killing. There is no other evidence especially physical factual evidence to prove this. Without knowing who he was and what went through his mind and what his actual motive, there is no way you can say with any certainty this his killings were of a sexual nature.
Simply burying your head in the sand and saying "well he killed prostitutes and targeting thier abdominal region therefore it is automatically proven he is a sexual killer or got sexual gratification out of it" is totally ludicris.

And yet, that is a workable definition of "sexually-motivated killer" as defined by Dr. Bond, who did the original, contemporary criminal profile on Jack.

Like it or not, understand it or not... none of that matters. It is your definition of what a sexually-motivated killer is or must be or must do that is in need of revision. Dr. Bond defined it in 1888... not you in 2008. The evidence is Dr. Bond's definition and profile.

[jc007]

And yet, that is a workable definition of "sexually-motivated killer" as defined by Dr. Bond, who did the original, contemporary criminal profile on Jack.

Like it or not, understand it or not... none of that matters. It is your definition of what a sexually-motivated killer is or must be or must do that is in need of revision. Dr. Bond defined it in 1888... not you in 2008. The evidence is Dr. Bond's definition and profile.

And so its not a possiblity Bond got it wrong? everyone seems to think Phillips got it wrong thinking Jack had medical knowledge, if your going to take one Dr's word as gold you gotta take them all why pick and choose, cause it suits your own theorys and studies better??

[Ben]

Ben, how do you know that option wasn't available to him, someone like bundy went out of his way to make up stories to lure his victims away to seclusion.

No. I asked first.

How do you know that the possibility of more secluded "Bundy-esque" was available to the ripper? How do you know that he wasn't making the best of the limited options available? Because if you don't know on both counts, then your attempt to distance his motivation from Bundy et al falls woefully short.

the fact the abdominal region was attacked does not assume he was getting a great deal of pleasure out of it

He was. I don't know of a single case of a serialist NOT deriving pleasure from habitual murder.

[jc007]

Ben, like Dan, if you wish to be taken seriously with your replys and your opinions please don't either put words in my mouth as Dan did or misquote me as you did above. my correct statement was thus:

the nature of the kill besides the fact the abdominal region was attacked does not assume he was getting a great deal of pleasure out of it.

If the best you and Dan can do is to try and misquote me or put words in my mouth then its pretty sad, next time don't misquote me and slice up what i say and only add part of the sentence that helps your arguement, it doesn't make you and Dan look real good when you have to resort to putting words in peoples mouths or misquoting them to try and gain some kind of brownie points.

[Ben]

Jc007,

I didn't misquote you at all. I copied and pasted from your post. Even if I did include "the nature of the kill...", I'd still disagree and still respond as I did.

All the best,
Ben

[jc007]

Ben, if you take away the abdominal injuries then you have no arguement for a sexual killer and as i have said which for some reason gets continually ignored it is not on its own enough to conclude beyone a shadow of doubt that he was a sexual killer, its enough to assume not enough for definate proof.

[Ben]

Ben, if you take away the abdominal injuries then you have no arguement for a sexual killer

What kind of an argument is that, JC007?

You may as well argue that if you "take away" the murders then you have no argument for a serial killer.

[jc007]

My arguement Ben, which you clearly are avoiding is you can not base something on one bit of circumstatial evidence, there could be other explanations why the abdominal injuries occured, without some further confirmation using factual evidence from the crime scenes its impossible to rule out another possible scenario, i don't know what scenario anymore than you do, my point is like i have a thousand times but you seem to completely ignore that the abdominal injuries alone by themselves do not conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt Jack was a sexual serial killer how many more times do i have to say this before you acknowledge the statement and whether you think its a right or wrong one? and just to make this clear i am not saying he definately is not a sexual killer just due to lack of evidence one way or the other that another possibilty is indeed possible.

[Ben]

the abdominal injuries alone by themselves do not conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt Jack was a sexual serial killer

I never said "conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt". I said he was probably a sexual serial killer, a statement I stand by.

[NOV9]

mindset

I believe that when you attack a woman the way Jack or any other serial killer does, it is a sex crime.

And the Post was not to focus on the killers intent but the mind set of Gary and Jack.

What Gary was thinking when he was being interrogated, his lack of remorse and that he hated the Prostitutes and that he made claim to them as his property, he would put them in places so he could go back and have sex with them again, (Ted Bundy did he same thing.) as Gary would say “it was free” he did not have to pay for it.

Gary was living in the same area all his life; Jack had to be living in the same area that being Whitechapel all his life as well. The interesting part to me was that Gary was a little man, which made him seem harmless. What features did Jack have to make the Prostitutes feel that he was not a threat to them?

-Dennis
Thanks for not attacking me; NOV9 said that you would, and that I was to be prepared for it.

NOV9 is still on assignment.

[CraigInTwinCities]

And so its not a possiblity Bond got it wrong? everyone seems to think Phillips got it wrong thinking Jack had medical knowledge, if your going to take one Dr's word as gold you gotta take them all why pick and choose, cause it suits your own theorys and studies better??

JC,

You're obfuscating the issue at hand, and you're wrong.

1) Dr. Bond couldn't have "gotten it wrong" on Jack, because Dr. Bond was basically pioneering the field of profiling back then. So it is HIS terminology and definitions that matter, especially if we are seeking to understand him and what he meant. Because that's what we're talking about here is the language and definition of things.

2) Taking one doctor's opinion over another is done frequently, JC. It's not an all or nothing game. Anyone familiar with this case knows what most other Ripperologists have written about things like this, and here are the prevalent theories as well as the "facts on the ground" to the best extent that we can know them: Dr. Bond was an older doctor in 1888 with a lot of experience under his belt, so in general he is given a fair amount of credibility. Dr. Phillips, who I believe was the inquest cornorner on most of the cases if I'm recalling correctly, was a younger and less experienced professional; he has drawn heavy criticism for using the coroner's inquests of a couple of the victims to drag out long, melodramatic discussions of the crime, far beyond what was necessary to come to the end-purpose of the actual inquest, which was simply to deternmine whether a victim died by way of murder or natural causes. This lack of judgment and flair for the dramatic speaks to his youth and lack of experience, and some Ripperologists charge it also discredits his professional judgment at the stage in his career where the Ripper was active. So yes, one could, possibly, given a study of both people, lend more weight and credibility to one medical professional than to another. To say otherwise is naive; it's comperable to having two eyewitnesses to the scene of a crime, and ignoring that one was stone-cold sober while the other was raging drunk at the time they witnesses the event... clearly, you value the sober person's testimony over the drunk's. Your argument would be, no we don't, we either ignore both or take both seriously. That's just not wise.

3) So again, bottom line, Dr. Bond defined Jack as a sexually-motivated killer and explains why... not due to possible sexual acts committed at the scene, but due to things like victimology, the nature of the attack, etc. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but the historical definition stands because that's how Dr. Bond framed it. Whether he was correct or not is a completely separate issue; his definition of Jack in that way is a matter of the historic record.

4) I've noticed you harranguing a lot of fellow Casebook posters about "where's your evidence to prove it," JC, and I have to suggest at this point that it's not incumbant upon us to do so, since the vast majority view and weight of evidence side with this as an historical fact: accurate or not in the end, Dr. Bond DID define Jack as a sexually-motivated killer. So actually, the onus is on YOU to provide evidence to the contrary view. And I mean real evidence, not just a 25-word posting of your opinion. See, I've gone further than most who have responded to you... I've pointed you to quotes, historical persons, and sources for how Jack came to be defined this way... and I really didn't have to, since the historical view is the historical view, whether one likes/agrees with it or not. So, if you want to disprove the correctness of Dr. Bond's historical definition of Jack as a sexually-motivated killer, great! Have at it! That's a solid direction for research and scholarship into the case. But that would be YOUR area to do work in. Showing up on these boards and being loud with your unsupported, unresearch opinion doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. It proved nothing beyond what you do and don't understand about the case. If you wish for your opinion to be taken seriously, then do the hard work of researching the case extensively, finding sources to support your theory, and doing some scholarship on the topic to prove your point. Write a paper; have it peer-reviewed at Ripperologist or Ripper Notes or Whitechapel Society Journal or by Stephen here at Casebook. Do a piece that's thorough and sourced enough to draw the respect of Ripper editors at one of those sources and get your idea "in print." Then perhaps you'll have some standing for your opinions. As it is, you come off as an arrogant hobbyist who's not even that thoroughly read on the topic, and I've even seen you resort to name-calling, which is hardly a professional approach. If you're unwilling to do the hard work of being a serious Ripperologist, you're not that serious about the case and both you and your views will be treated accordingly, I'm afraid... with as much or as little respect as you show others on this board. Some of the people who post on here, such as Dan Norder, Tom Wescott, Chris George and many others, have been studying and PUBLISHING in this field for years, so having someone like you charge that they are not giving you the evidence or are poorly researched is the HEIGHT of disrespect. It's not OUR job to prove YOUR theory for you. That ball's in YOUR court.

5) Another example of disrespect is the charge you made against me, suggesting that I am defending Dr. Bond because "it suits your own theories and studies better." JC, know what the hell you're talking about before making an accusation like that. I suspect that you've never been to my history blog, either here on casebook or on the Web, or that you've read my published piece in Ripper Notes. I suspect (could be wrong) that all you know of me is what I have posted in response to you. My "theories and studies" are not dependant upon whether Jack was ACTUALLY sexually-motivated or not. It's not my focus. (It seems to be your focus.) But saying things like that when you haven't demonstrated that you have a single clue yourself is why so many people have (at least briefly, before losing patience with you enough to stop responding at all) fueded with you on this board. I think in sum, most folks familiar with my published Ripper work and my postings here and on my history/Jack blog would understand that ignoring evidence that doesn't support a particular theory is something I campaign against, not something I'm doing myself. As my signature on these boards says, I support no particular theory on who Jack was. You could almost say that, thus far, I'm kind of like Ripperology's MythBuster... though I fear I haven't done quite enough work just yet to merit ANY title, given that I have only one professionally-published essay under my belt. So, given all that, sonny-jim, you really barked up the wrong tree THAT time.

6) Given your own demonstrations of arrogance, making false charges, never even meeting someone halfway with your own sources, quotes and evidence, but only using your own insufficeintly-informed opinion as a source... and well, just all of it together... please know that I'm done trying to help you fit in now. Once you start backing up your own opinion, showing respect to other folks on these boards who are far more researched and studied than you, and generally being a nicer chap to chat with... I see no reason to continue engaging you in pointless debates where you seemingly fail to grasp the evidence folks like me present you with to educate your opinion; it seems to fall on deaf ears, and so now, like many others, I've got my own research to do and, thus, more productive uses of my time. At least till such time as you grow up a bit in your demeanor on these boards and can start treating others as you wish to be treated.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't know why there should be such excitement over what's really just a label at the end of the day. Whether Jack were a sexual serial killer or not, does it really help us? Does labelling him provide us with any more information than the simple fact that he killed women? I honestly don't think it does.

[CraigInTwinCities]

I don't know why there should be such excitement over what's really just a label at the end of the day. Whether Jack were a sexual serial killer or not, does it really help us? Does labelling him provide us with any more information than the simple fact that he killed women? I honestly don't think it does.

I tend to agree with that viewpoint, Sam. Labeling a crime doesn't get us any closer to the truth in the final wash... it just categorizes it.

[Mitch Rowe]

I don't know why there should be such excitement over what's really just a label at the end of the day. Whether Jack were a sexual serial killer or not, does it really help us? Does labelling him provide us with any more information than the simple fact that he killed women? I honestly don't think it does.

I disagree..If we can label JTR with confidence then we can compare this unsub with known subjects and attempt a profile. Yes profiling is a weak form of investigation and is almost never 100% correct and can even hurt in some cases but we dont have much to work with in these cases.

We have to do something. Anything to try to get us closer to JTRs identity.

I look at these cases as a frontier of science so to speak. Like space exploration. Really no purpose to send a man to the moon but the benefits gained to the public are many fold. New technology developed to go to moon is an example. If we are forced to invent new forms of investigation in order to solve the JTR mystery then there is a chance we can help others to solve cold cases.