Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motivation?

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

  • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

    I thought one of the witnesses from that night did view the bodies of Stride and Eddowes. I can't remember which.
    interesting. ive never heard if this before. wonder why a witness would be taken to see both. would be interesting to know who it was, and why.

    Comment


    • "With a view of testing the accuracy and honesty of Packer's testimony, the detectives obtained an order to view the body of the woman murdered in Mitre square, and took Packer to see it, leaving him under the impression that they were taking him to see the Berner street victim. On seeing the body he at once declared that it was not the woman for whom the grapes had been bought, and not a bit like her....
      "This afternoon Matthew Packer, the fruiterer, of 44 Berner street, referred to in the above narrative, visited the mortuary of St. George's in the East, and identified the body of Elizabeth Stride as that of the woman for whom the grapes were purchased on the night of the murder"

      Comment


      • The problem is, we only have Le Grand's word that he did this. How far should we trust Le Grand's word?
        dustymiller
        aka drstrange

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
          "With a view of testing the accuracy and honesty of Packer's testimony, the detectives obtained an order to view the body of the woman murdered in Mitre square, and took Packer to see it, leaving him under the impression that they were taking him to see the Berner street victim. On seeing the body he at once declared that it was not the woman for whom the grapes had been bought, and not a bit like her....
          "This afternoon Matthew Packer, the fruiterer, of 44 Berner street, referred to in the above narrative, visited the mortuary of St. George's in the East, and identified the body of Elizabeth Stride as that of the woman for whom the grapes were purchased on the night of the murder"
          Yes, I think Scott is meaning Packer, but whether the two detectives really tried to trick him, as if he wouldn't know the difference between the St. George Mortuary and Golden Lane in the City, is possibly open to debate.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • It could be a terrible mistake to assume the killer was an idiot, or a half hysterical lunatic. If we assume he has average intelligence then wouldn't he plan somewhat before the crime? Decide on an area to use, possible bolt holes or escape routes. Would he not wear clothes that would either blend in or put him beyond bobby on the beat suspicion? If I were him, I would dress and look completely different every time. So witness statements look confused. I think he was a clever bastard. Probably very clever. That's why he ain't been buckled.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
              It could be a terrible mistake to assume the killer was an idiot, or a half hysterical lunatic. If we assume he has average intelligence then wouldn't he plan somewhat before the crime? Decide on an area to use, possible bolt holes or escape routes. Would he not wear clothes that would either blend in or put him beyond bobby on the beat suspicion? If I were him, I would dress and look completely different every time. So witness statements look confused. I think he was a clever bastard. Probably very clever. That's why he ain't been buckled.
              Maybe even having a hat and coat selection to alternate his clothing? If I was an organised serial killer I'd be content that would be enough to put the police off. A deranged butcher walking around with a bloody apron might be a little obvious to these street smart women. But then we are told he was disoragnised by FBI profilers because he killed most of his victims on the street with high risk of being caught. Or he trusted the prostitutes themselves would know where would be discreet and let them lead the way, giving them that extra level of trust.
              "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
              - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
                Could Israel be fabricated? Made up? If so , why??
                We know that an Israel Schwartz connection to the club does come up in later history, so Israel as a fabrication is unlikely.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
                  It could be a terrible mistake to assume the killer was an idiot, or a half hysterical lunatic. If we assume he has average intelligence then wouldn't he plan somewhat before the crime? Decide on an area to use, possible bolt holes or escape routes. Would he not wear clothes that would either blend in or put him beyond bobby on the beat suspicion? If I were him, I would dress and look completely different every time. So witness statements look confused. I think he was a clever bastard. Probably very clever. That's why he ain't been buckled.
                  But if we're not careful, that kind of thinking can lead us to view the Ripper as some kind of super sleuth.
                  If you know anything about the Yorkshire Ripper, there might be a more likely parallel between these two killers than has been realized.
                  Peter Sutcliffe was no super sleuth, he didn't intentionally disguise himself, thats more Hollywood than real life. He was not too smart, and not strong either, though he was lucky, he was a wimp, and one detective thought he looked effeminate.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    But if we're not careful, that kind of thinking can lead us to view the Ripper as some kind of super sleuth.
                    If you know anything about the Yorkshire Ripper, there might be a more likely parallel between these two killers than has been realized.
                    Peter Sutcliffe was no super sleuth, he didn't intentionally disguise himself, thats more Hollywood than real life. He was not too smart, and not strong either, though he was lucky, he was a wimp, and one detective thought he looked effeminate.
                    To be honest I have been thinking about the actual knife work. On all the victims except for Stride, he stabbed the abdomen. Not just cut it open, he stabbed it. On Eddowes death pic you can actually see where he stabbed. I reckon he did that first after the throat out of frenzy or lust. The stab wounds to Polly N's vagina point to lust. Maybe not too clevr after all.
                    Last edited by miakaal4; 09-10-2020, 01:05 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post

                      To be honest I have been thinking about the actual knife work. On all the victims except for Stride, he stabbed the abdomen. Not just cut it open, he stabbed it. On Eddowes death pic you can actually see where he stabbed. I reckon he did that first after the throat out of frenzy or lust. The stab wounds to Polly N's vagina point to lust. Maybe not too clevr after all.
                      Your observation regarding a stab wound to her abdomen confuses me.

                      Do you refer to abdomen or pelvis?

                      Where exactly is this stab wound?

                      Have the 'photo up on a 120" screen.

                      What was done in less than 14 minutes with no light was extraordinary.

                      The complete lack of blood spray indicates she was not killed on the spot,ruling out frenzy and lust.

                      Doubt the "eyework" was done with the same utensil without light.Most likely done indoors, where she was probably strangled, using a small scalpel.

                      The exploratory work on her inguinal lymph nodes is largely overlooked.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	Cancer nodes.jpg
Views:	140
Size:	70.0 KB
ID:	741612

                      All the Best,

                      Dave.
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        But if we're not careful, that kind of thinking can lead us to view the Ripper as some kind of super sleuth.
                        If you know anything about the Yorkshire Ripper, there might be a more likely parallel between these two killers than has been realized.
                        Peter Sutcliffe was no super sleuth, he didn't intentionally disguise himself, thats more Hollywood than real life. He was not too smart, and not strong either, though he was lucky, he was a wimp, and one detective thought he looked effeminate.
                        I don’t think anyone believed Jack was a super genius. Just that his tactics were good enough for him not to get caught. This shows some level of organised thinking. I believe he was an organised killer which incidentally so was Sutcliffe. The parallels do not end there either with the post-Morten mutilations being very similar in style. He blended naturally into society and operated what would be perceived as a normal married life whilst also committing these crimes. Sutcliffe was not a genius but he wasn’t dumb either.
                        interesting article here: https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co...rkshire-ripper
                        "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                        - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                        Comment


                        • Very interesting article. I know very little about Sutcliffe. Seems like he was pretty weird before he got married. I'm not sure what triggered his attack on the victims abs. Is it really all about no kids? Referring to above Sutcliffe was a bit of a planner it seems. He sounds like the guy who killed prostitutes on American highways. Another trucker. Prostitutes and homeless are easy targets. If prostitution was legal during Sutcliffes reign, he may have targeted any women. As he in fact did i believe.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                            I don’t think anyone believed Jack was a super genius. Just that his tactics were good enough for him not to get caught. This shows some level of organised thinking. I believe he was an organised killer which incidentally so was Sutcliffe. The parallels do not end there either with the post-Morten mutilations being very similar in style. He blended naturally into society and operated what would be perceived as a normal married life whilst also committing these crimes. Sutcliffe was not a genius but he wasn’t dumb either.
                            interesting article here: https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co...rkshire-ripper
                            We've all debated the books & methods of criminal psychologists like David Canter & John Douglas, it's just that much of what they talk about is self explanatory, some might say, pretty obvious. Though interpretations of criminal activity could also be described as pretty subjective in many cases.
                            On the whole I'm not too impressed with what they think is 'organised' or 'disorganised', or the differences they claim between the two.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              We've all debated the books & methods of criminal psychologists like David Canter & John Douglas, it's just that much of what they talk about is self explanatory, some might say, pretty obvious. Though interpretations of criminal activity could also be described as pretty subjective in many cases.
                              On the whole I'm not too impressed with what they think is 'organised' or 'disorganised', or the differences they claim between the two.
                              I would be inclined to agree that there is room for nuance and it can't be an exact science. I would not discount criminal profiling completely. It was very effective in the Washington DC sniper shootings back in 2002 and I'm sure many other cases.
                              "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                              - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                                I would not discount criminal profiling completely. It was very effective in the Washington DC sniper shootings back in 2002 and I'm sure many other cases.
                                Erobitha, you might want to read the following:

                                https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs...297-story.html

                                The two snipers were caught completely by accident as they slept in a rest area. The profilers weren't even remotely accurate. They were wrong in nearly every detail.

                                Most suggested the sniper would be a lone white male in his early 20s, a local chap who drove a white van, probably as a delivery driver.

                                The real snipers were two black dudes, unemployed, from well outside of the area who drove a blue car.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X