Occam’s Razor, or why I love the Ripper murders.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AlanG
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert View Post
    He even got to meet Jimmy Savile.
    There is a photo of him with Frank Bruno and Jimmy Saville

    Leave a comment:


  • YankeeSergeant
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
    [ATTACH]15008[/ATTACH]

    You're just in time for latest find, Suze.

    Roy
    Must be more than a few of those in Whitechapel.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    He was unable to fix his release though

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    He even got to meet Jimmy Savile.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Indeed. A plea of not guilty, on grounds of diminished resposibility was put forward. In effect Sutcliffe would not have been tried by jury, if the plea had been accepted. Thank God Mr Justice Boreham rejected the plea, and Sutcliffe stood trial. He got his way in the end though, he served only three years in prison, he's spent the remainder in Broadmoor, an infinitely cushier lifestyle.

    Regards

    Observer

    Regards

    Observer

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    Just read the first account of the murder of Wilma McCann. It illustrates my contention that these killers are very reluctant to reveal the truth.
    Quite so, but by this time had he not already decided to fabricate his motivation, essentially to present himself as a "victim" of schizophrenia?
    Sutcliffe was a manipulator of the first order....

    Now caught, his focus was to make his eternal state of captivity as comfortable as possible by using the system to his advantage.

    Regards, Jon S.
    Last edited by Wickerman; 01-06-2013, 08:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Just read the first account of the murder of Wilma McCann. It illustrates my contention that these killers are very reluctant to reveal the truth. Sutcliffe had already attacked three women with a hammer prior to McCann. The impression he gives is that the attack on McCann was brought on my her mocking him, and the hammer just happened to be there in his tool box. Of course, the three attacks on women before Wilma McCann were not being attributed to him at that point.
    Last edited by Observer; 01-06-2013, 07:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Thanks. A good addition to this thread I'd say

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    I can only agree with you Wickerman.

    It was revealing to find that Sutcliffe returned to one of his victims to retrieve a £5 note, he also took along a hacksaw blade to saw the woman's head off. He was not successful. He intended to dump it somewhere else, in order to "create a big mystery out of it". But enough of Sutcliffe. I'd recomend reading his confession though, don't know if it's online.

    Regards

    Observer
    Here you are....

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    I can only agree with you Wickerman.

    It was revealing to find that Sutcliffe returned to one of his victims to retrieve a £5 note, he also took along a hacksaw blade to saw the woman's head off. He was not successful. He intended to dump it somewhere else, in order to "create a big mystery out of it". But enough of Sutcliffe. I'd recomend reading his confession though, don't know if it's online.

    Regards

    Observer

    Leave a comment:


  • GregBaron
    replied
    Dumb luck...

    Originally posted by APerno View Post
    I will waste your time by agreeing with you.

    I get annoyed when I have to read/hear about how bright Ted Bundy supposedly was. We go on and on about how they love to stalk, tease, play the ‘cat and mouse game.’
    I basically agree with you Anthony although I do think Ted Bundy got some thrill out of the stalking. But you're right, this romantic notion of serial murderers
    as sophisticated Draculas is quite unfounded. I remember one book about Bundy started by saying he was only middling bright (IQ 124), poorly read, poorly travelled, a nose picker and a nail biter. He was simply a loser pervert who was completely inept around women. His whole personality was a facade. This is common among psychopaths.

    The endless debate about Jtr or the killer/killers of these women remains - was he organized or disorganized, a cunning psychopath or a schizophrenic? The debate rages but as everything in this case, we lack information. We can only make inferences.

    Many serial killers are just lucky they aren't caught sooner. Jtr may fall into this category.

    Hopefully some of our excellent researchers will one day find credible evidence one way or another.............but I wouldn't hold your breath...


    Greg

    Leave a comment:


  • APerno
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert View Post
    At a gut level, I feel that men who kill prostitutes do it because, at some level, they believe all women are prostitutes. Streetwalkers bear the brunt because they're comparatively easy targets and the killers can salve their consciences with some humbug about "just cleaning up the streets." If, per impossibile, they became convinced that all prostitutes had beed eliminated, they would then start killing women whose skirts were too short or wore figure-hugging clothes...
    I will waste your time by agreeing with you.

    JTR was an opportunist, and prostitutes, late at night, make easy targets; our belief that he was ‘down on whores’ was/is a product of the correspondences.

    I get annoyed when I have to read/hear about how bright Ted Bundy supposedly was. We go on and on about how they love to stalk, tease, play the ‘cat and mouse game.’ Well if that is the case then how come we never come across a truly imaginative serial killer, one who lays a truly sophisticated web; choosing difficult targets, targets that demand immigration, elaborate planning, cunning and risk, to dispatch?

    The Green River Killer may be the most sophisticated of all the killers known; he ‘called them up on the phone.’ (read sarcastically)

    My conclusion is that they have very little interest in the ‘cat and mouse’ aspect of what they do, and it is only the sad sense of empowerment they receive from taking an innocent life that drives them. I believe we overplay it because it makes them more ‘romantic’ and exciting. Their supposed sophistication is a fault of our desire for historical romance.

    But, as I have warned before I have this prejudice against serial killers being sophisticated, intelligent, and cunning, so I may be blind; limited in what I can see.

    I repeat, I agree, whores are the favorite target because they are easy targets, and any claim about ‘cleaning up the streets’ is an excuse for going after easy targets.

    My 2 cents

    Anthony

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Patterns established by modern day serial killers have little if any relevance to crimes that we do not know were connected to a single killer.

    Best regards
    Patterns?
    The motives have never changed.

    Availability of victims has changed, modes of transportation changed which can mean the range of killings has changed.
    Weapons like manual, gun or knife have not changed.

    The Yorkshire Ripper murders are among the best, arguably may even be the best, series to compare the whole range of Whitechapel murders along with errors of the investigation.
    Many of the criticisms raised about a JtR suspect are proven to be without value when we see how Sutcliffe varied his M.O.

    Using a different approach, a variety of weapons, showed inconsistent wound patterns, including, stabbing with a screwdriver, slicing with a knife, or no wounds at all. Then there were his target areas they also changed, Leeds, Manchester, Halifax, Keighley, etc., no specific killing 'field'.

    So why shouldn't Ada Wilson be included, out in Mile end away from the core area (like Sutcliffe), or Tabram because he used different weapons (like Sutcliffe), or Coles and McKenzie because of the hiatus (also like Sutcliffe).

    We can make Jack the Ripper look any way we choose so long as we continue to dismiss what we feel is not relevant, but whose to know what is or is not truly relevant, in the Whitechapel Murders.

    Regards, Jon S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Hi Robert

    No one knows what goes through the minds of such people, they are notoriously reluctant to discuss their true inner thoughts as to why they murder. It's obvious killing affords them great pleasure. Sutcliffe has described the whole package as addictive, the urge to kill took him over completely. I dont think JTR was any different to Sutcliffe.

    Regards

    Observer

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    At a gut level, I feel that men who kill prostitutes do it because, at some level, they believe all women are prostitutes. Streetwalkers bear the brunt because they're comparatively easy targets and the killers can salve their consciences with some humbug about "just cleaning up the streets." If, per impossibile, they became convinced that all prostitutes had beed eliminated, they would then start killing women whose skirts were too short or wore figure-hugging clothes...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X