Ripper Facts

[Columbo]

Hi Fisherman,

On what basis would that be?

I only know of a few cases where someone who hadn't killed before were able to absolutely mutilate a body and have no feeling for it, and I would guess those people were pure sociopaths, or along those lines. So I would say it is a safe bet JTR probably did start off with some sort of violence. Maybe animals, maybe humans, but I don't know beyond speculation how to prove that at this point in time.

Of course I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer on this subject.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Albert Desalvo quit killing and went back to rape. The yorkshire killer started strangling instead of stabbing because he didn't want to be associated with JTR. The Zodiak killer had different MO's. Maybe these aren't vastly different but they show they can and will change.

There is absolutely no factual basis for assuming a killer can't change his MO. that's alot of behavioral science bunk that's clouded peoples minds for years.

Look at it this way, how would you know if a serial killer changed him MO unless he told you and even then why would you believe a person like that without solid proof?

Columbo

Double posting

[Fisherman]

The Düesseldorf police looked for three or four different killers in the twenties, a man who killed with a hammer, one who stabbed with a pair of scissors and one who strangled or something like that ( I don´t remember the details). They found all killers in the shape of one man: Peter Kürten. He confessed to contemplating poisoning on a grand scale too, but he never got that far.

I think that serialists are often people who will adapt to the circumstances in order to keep killing. There is ample evidence that todays serialists will many times move between jurisdictions in order to veil their business. I find it quite likely that they will also draw upon the spread knowledge that differing MO:s will offer a better chance to stay undetected.

Not that the Ripper/Torso killer would have been aware of that, but it points to an adaptibility and diversity that may have been shared in the late nineteenth century as well. And Kürten arrives only a few decades afterwards.

[Columbo]

Double posting

Did I double post?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Craig H;379921]

I thought it could be useful to identify what are the actual facts we know about the Ripper, as opposed to speculation.

Hi Craig,

I appreciate that but the problem is that "facts" are social constructions. When it comes to history, facts are established using source criticism. And a lot of people are not historians here, so they will have a lot of non-historical ideas about what a "fact" should be. Just throwing some light on this problem.

While it could be argued that most of what we know about JTR is speculation, there are some aspects that are more factual than others.

The following is my start ...

Witness description. The consistent picture from more reliable witnesses is he was aged 25 - 35 y.o., about 5'7" tall, was English, appeared well educated, had a moustache and was stocky built.

There is an interesting question here: Why is this the "consistent picture", given the time of the sightings (night time/early morning) and the place (streets in Whitechapel)? If we make an ideal type of what you call "the consistent picture" we can make a statistical hypothesis that this type of man was common at night in Whitechapel. What does this imply?

Time of killings. He only killed on weekends in the early morning.

A well established fact. Was he afraid of being recognized by people who knew him? Did he wait for the victims to become more drunk so he could kill them easier? Or was it just because there were less people out?

Had skill in cutting and anatomy. While it is contentious whether he was a doctor or butcher, one can say he was comfortable using a knife to cut flesh.

Maybe he did not cut out of comfort. Maybe he did it out of hatred and for destruction.

He was able to move around without being detected.

Perhaps he did.

Dates are alingned with turmoil at Scotland Yard. The first Nicholls killing occurred when Monro resigned due to conflict with Warren. The final Kelly killing was the day after Warren resigned.

At least the day after Warren resigned on paper.

No killings in October.

But placing body parts in the new Scotland Yard building.

Killings preceded by Torso murders, and body part thrown into Scotland Yard. While some debate whether the Torso a killer and Ripper were the same man, they both had the same impact of embarrassing Metropolitan Police.

Yes. What fools the police are, indeed.

Scotland Yard was unpopular. Warren was criticised for bringing in force to quell a protest the previous November. There was known tension within Scotland Yard and with City of London Police.

Items I have omitted as fact, which could be are :

Graffiti and apron

Yes. An important clue.

Letters - while most are considered a hoax, some believe the Lusk letter and kidney are genuine.

I don´t.

There is obviously so much speculation around the Ripper. I know I'd appreciate knowing what are the facts , and hope others may as well.

I don´t like speculation.

All the best

Craig

Interesting post, Craig.

Kind regards, Pierre

[GUT]

Craig must be an historian cause the great one said it was an interesting post, and only historians know anything.

[Pierre]

Craig must be an historian cause the great one said it was an interesting post, and only historians know anything.

Do you go to a car dealer when you need surgery? Or to a dentist when you want a haircut?

[David Orsam]

Do you go to a car dealer when you need surgery? Or to a dentist when you want a haircut?

Who do you go to so solve a murder: a historian or a detective?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I agree with Gut that there is a strong possibility that witness descriptions are not of the killer.


There are very few facts in my opinion. Maybe two:
1- The killer carried the weapon with him before and after the murders.
2- The victims were killed where they were found.

I do not include the throat cutting in facts, because it would mean taking the canonical five for granted, and that is more a deduction than fact.

Also, almost a fact, imo:
1- the killer was familiar with Whitechapel/Spitalfields.


About witness descriptions: there is an interesting TED talk from a forensic specialist. 20 minute long, worth watching.

https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fraser_the_problem_with_eyewitness_testimony

[GUT]

Do you go to a car dealer when you need surgery? Or to a dentist when you want a haircut?

That must be why police forces around the world employ so many history majors as detectives in their murder squads.

And the cold case squads are absolutely awash with historians.

But then of course I'm not sure anyone here believes Pierre is an historian so maybe he is perfectly placed.

[GUT]

I agree with Gut that there is a strong possibility that witness descriptions are not of the killer.


There are very few facts in my opinion. Maybe two:
1- The killer carried the weapon with him before and after the murders.
2- The victims were killed where they were found.

I do not include the throat cutting in facts, because it would mean taking the canonical five for granted, and that is more a deduction than fact.

Also, almost a fact, imo:
1- the killer was familiar with Whitechapel/Spitalfields.


About witness descriptions: there is an interesting TED talk from a forensic specialist. 20 minute long, worth watching.
https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fras...ness_testimony

Witness ID is of itself an interesting topic, in most jurisdictions if a criminal case involves ID evidence a judge is required to give the jury a warning as to how unreliable such evidence is.

[Columbo]

I agree with Gut that there is a strong possibility that witness descriptions are not of the killer.


There are very few facts in my opinion. Maybe two:
1- The killer carried the weapon with him before and after the murders.
2- The victims were killed where they were found.

I do not include the throat cutting in facts, because it would mean taking the canonical five for granted, and that is more a deduction than fact.

Also, almost a fact, imo:
1- the killer was familiar with Whitechapel/Spitalfields.


About witness descriptions: there is an interesting TED talk from a forensic specialist. 20 minute long, worth watching.
https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fras...ness_testimony

So are you saying the witnesses saw no one with the victims, or that Annie Chapman found another customer within 30 minutes or so, Eddowes serviced the one she was seen with and found another within the same timeframe and near Mitre's Square who happened to be JTR? Was Stride beatened up by a suitor and then 10 minutes or so later JTR found her in Dutsfield's Yard and killed her?

Columbo

[GUT]

So are you saying the witnesses saw no one with the victims, or that Annie Chapman found another customer within 30 minutes or so, Eddowes serviced the one she was seen with and found another within the same timeframe and near Mitre's Square who happened to be JTR? Was Stride beatened up by a suitor and then 10 minutes or so later JTR found her in Dutsfield's Yard and killed her?

Columbo

All highly possible.

Or the transaction with the one seen with fell through.

No proof at all that anyone saw a victim with the killer.

[GUT]

All highly possible.

Or the transaction with the one seen with fell through.

No proof at all that anyone saw a victim with the killer.

I once considered that Jack may have watched the couple and then struck after the bloke left, but the evidence seems clear that no sex took place.

Save to say they could not rule out oral.

[Columbo]

I once considered that Jack may have watched the couple and then struck after the bloke left, but the evidence seems clear that no sex took place.

Save to say they could not rule out oral.

Possible I guess but it just doesn't read that way to me. It's not like it would be difficult to pick up a desperate prostitute, so why would he wait for someone to strike out and then attack?

Columbo