Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Fisherman]

Ben: Hi Fisherman,

But the difference here is one of victimology, not "controlled" versus "uncontrolled".

I would say that the controlled/uncontrolled issue is very important too, not least since one killer was so much more given to rely on luck. It matters.

None of Rader's victims were remotely likely to entice him into remote locations...

Of course not, no.

...whereas had he been a prostitute murderer, he might well have relied on them to select the "venue".

But that´s the whole point I am making - Rader was not the type that would evolve into a prostitute killer. He targetted people in their homes, and would - to my mind - have done so in order to procure full control. Of course, if he had the chance to target and stalk a prostitute in her home, it would be another thing - but in such a case, I propose that the prostitution factor would be secondary.

We don't even known that it was the prostitutes who led the ripper, as opposed to the other way round. For all we know, the ripper was every inch a control freak and insisted that they follow him.

Not to say that you are wrong, but it would have been a hard thing to achieve during the Ripper scare.

I take your point with regard to our lack of knowledge as to whether the ripper was organised or disorganised, although presumably you feel he belongs more in the former category?

Yes, I do. But that is just my take, and I respect that others are divided on this issue.

I think he'd struggle, to be honest, even if he was intimately familiar with the immediate area, as I believe he was. In Buck's Row, he may have intended to make use of the stable itself, only to find the door locked.

Yes, exactly. That is the kind of thing I propose. And once the door was closed, an organized killer would normally walk away. There will have been other, more secluded venues than the open street in Buck´s Row.

I agree entirely that the killer was probably psycopathic/sociopathic and took risks accordingly, but that doesn't mean he relied completely on luck, or was oblivious to the danger of being caught.

No, that´s correct - he would have an active interest in staying uncaught. As for any reliance on luck, he would not ever rely on it - he would instead rely on his own capacity and superiority. The fact that he stayed uncaught will probably not be something he felt owed to luck at all.

If he did, and was, he was highly unlikely to remain uncaught for as long as he was (i.e. forever!).

Yes - but he would not see this himself. To him, it would be the most likely outcome, in all probability.

He may well have enjoyed displaying his victims and terrorizing society (etc), but regarldess of whether or not this factored on his agenda, he was unlikely to have had many options beyond disposing of his prostitute victims where he killed them.

True - which is why we can reach no certainty on this point. There are the odd pointers though.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I think that there is every reason to believe that there were major differences inbetween Rader and the Ripper, one of them being that I believe that the Ripper followed his victims to their chosen venues of sextrading, whereas Rader was much of a control-freak who to my mind would not let that decision slip through his fingers.

But the difference here is one of victimology, not "controlled" versus "uncontrolled". None of Rader's victims were remotely likely to entice him into remote locations, whereas had he been a prostitute murderer, he might well have relied on them to select the "venue". We don't even known that it was the prostitutes who led the ripper, as opposed to the other way round. For all we know, the ripper was every inch a control freak and insisted that they follow him. I take your point with regard to our lack of knowledge as to whether the ripper was organised or disorganised, although presumably you feel he belongs more in the former category?

I think, however, that any killer who prioritized safety would easily have been able to find more secure murder spots than for example Buck´s Row.

I think he'd struggle, to be honest, even if he was intimately familiar with the immediate area, as I believe he was. In Buck's Row, he may have intended to make use of the stable itself, only to find the door locked.

I agree entirely that the killer was probably psycopathic/sociopathic and took risks accordingly, but that doesn't mean he relied completely on luck, or was oblivious to the danger of being caught. If he did, and was, he was highly unlikely to remain uncaught for as long as he was (i.e. forever!). He may well have enjoyed displaying his victims and terrorizing society (etc), but regarldess of whether or not this factored on his agenda, he was unlikely to have had many options beyond disposing of his prostitute victims where he killed them.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

I also did a spot of fishing on the outer reef - catching crevalle and blackspot tuskfish (the latter I enjoyed later that night with a glass of riesling). Our own Fisherman would be proud!

I´m sure I would, Ben - congratulations to that.

I'm afraid I don't agree, and believe this to be a common misconception.

I think that there is every reason to believe that there were major differences inbetween Rader and the Ripper, one of them being that I believe that the Ripper followed his victims to their chosen venues of sextrading, whereas Rader was much of a control-freak who to my mind would not let that decision slip through his fingers.
It is also very clear that the public is divided when it comes to whether the Ripper was organized or disorganized (and rightly so), whereas nobody would even think of suggesting that Rader was anything but organized.

So the differences are there in how the two killers are perceived. After that, what they were truly about is up for grabs.

If the ripper was anything like the vast majority of Whitechapel denizens and had not the luxury of a private pad, he had no choice but to murder and dispose of them on the streets.

He could actually have a home and a family and STILL have no other choice than to kill away from home. I think, however, that any killer who prioritized safety would easily have been able to find more secure murder spots than for example Buck´s Row. So that will tell us something about our man.

It is unlikely, in my opinion, that the ripper could have evaded capture indefinitely by murdering on the open streets, and there is no gainsaying that luck played a significant role in his escapes.

That´s absolutely true. And the more luck a killer needs, the more likely he is to be disorganized, since organized killers are more prone to take useful precautions in order not to be depandant on luck.

Of course, my own suggestion is that the brazen MO may point more to a psychopath than anything else; a man that could not care less, and who was sure that he would get away with it, no matter what. And perhaps also a man that wanted to inject fear into society, therefore choosing to display his victims - like latter day followers as for example the Hillside stranglers.

With the police presence and vigilate activity as heightened as it was in November of 1888, and with the prostitutes more fearful than ever, the likelihood of another successful "hit and run" on the streets was considerably reduced. The October "lull" is best explained, in my opinion, by the ripper being cognizant of this and adjusting his strategy accordingly.

Could well be - but I am having more of a problem with that detail than you are. Why? Well, of course because I champion a psychopathic killer. And a psychopath would not care a iot about any heightened police presence.
I find that one explanation to the October lull could be that the killer was incapacitated in one or another fashion. As I have stated on another thread, this may well have been due to him having cut himself in Mitre Square.
No matter how we look upon things, we must deal in the conjecture business, and what lay behind it is anybody´s guess.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Beebs,

Were you working or holidaying?

Bit of both, actually! I travelled all over the continent, and ended up scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef and sailing round the Whitsunday Islands. I also did a spot of fishing on the outer reef - catching crevalle and blackspot tuskfish (the latter I enjoyed later that night with a glass of riesling). Our own Fisherman would be proud!

Hi Fisherman,

The Ripper was probably a lot different, since he primarily chose to kill out in the open streets.

I'm afraid I don't agree, and believe this to be a common misconception. If the ripper was anything like the vast majority of Whitechapel denizens and had not the luxury of a private pad, he had no choice but to murder and dispose of them on the streets. Who's to say that if he did have his own home and lived there alone, he wouldn't have dispatched and disposed of his victims there, like Nielsen, Gacy, and Dahmer did? A lack of alternatives, of the type that limited the ripper in all probability, would not reflect in any way on either his "planning" ability or his capacity to experiment with alternative pre-crime approaches.

It is unlikely, in my opinion, that the ripper could have evaded capture indefinitely by murdering on the open streets, and there is no gainsaying that luck played a significant role in his escapes. With the police presence and vigilate activity as heightened as it was in November of 1888, and with the prostitutes more fearful than ever, the likelihood of another successful "hit and run" on the streets was considerably reduced. The October "lull" is best explained, in my opinion, by the ripper being cognizant of this and adjusting his strategy accordingly.

Ted Bundy did so to devastating effect in Tallahasssee. Having previously succeeded at his fairly uniform technique of luring victims under a false guise, on this occasion he "stalked" his victims from a vantage point before breaking in. I suggest we allow for similar adaptability in the ripper's case.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish - the problem with your latest point is that even if you do not think Hutchinson was the Ripper, we have to accept that it is likely that the entity we refer to as the 'Ripper' did change his MO if we accept the canonical victims as victims of the same hand.

Of course you're free as is everyone to believe Kelly was killed by somebody else (which again wouldn't rule out Hutchinson as a murderer) but whoever killed and ripped those canonical victims went from opportunist to someone perhaps more organised in the sense that he took on Kelly and got the time and opportunity to indulge his murderous lusts.

Yes I am glad to be back Benz but will try to avoid any unpleasantness that arises sometimes on these wonderful discussion boards. Life is too short

x

Please see my post to Ben - it answers your post too to a great extent.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

You raise some interesting points, but bear in mind that Rader wasn't just a stalker.

Perhaps so - but he was more of a stalker than most serial killers; much more, in fact.

He was an organised and adaptable serial killer who recognised that different crime scenes necessitated a different type of pre-crime approach.

I´d go along with that any day in the week.

The ripper was obviously no different, and he was certainly no robot.

The Ripper was probably a lot different, since he primarily chose to kill out in the open streets. His deeds are a lot more simple in this context and I see no necessity to predispose that he was much of a planner or that he was flexible in his approach to his victims. He could of course have been, but it equally applies, I believe, that he must not have been.

If we're prepared to acknowledge that he could alter the type of venue he chose to target, i.e. a tiny room in an enclosed court as opposed to the open streets, then we ought to make similar allowances for "alteration" in terms of his approach to that type of venue.

We must perhaps allow for a somewhat changed approach, but there is no certainty that this was due to any consideration on the Ripper´s behalf. He could in each case have approached the victims and let them lead him to the "transaction area" if you will, and this may have held true for Kelly too. If he met her in the street - as he may have - he could easily have thought that he was going to be led down an alley where he could potentially strike, Ripper style.

He may have been taken by surprise by Kelly having a room, and then just worked from there. In such a case, he would have gone about matters in much the same way as always.

He could also have stalked her. Both options apply. It would, however, seemingly be a change of tactics on his behalf if he did.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

wow Benz - the other side of the world..

sounds fab Were you working or holidaying?

Any more articles in the making?

Hi Fish - the problem with your latest point is that even if you do not think Hutchinson was the Ripper, we have to accept that it is likely that the entity we refer to as the 'Ripper' did change his MO if we accept the canonical victims as victims of the same hand.

Of course you're free as is everyone to believe Kelly was killed by somebody else (which again wouldn't rule out Hutchinson as a murderer) but whoever killed and ripped those canonical victims went from opportunist to someone perhaps more organised in the sense that he took on Kelly and got the time and opportunity to indulge his murderous lusts.

Yes I am glad to be back Benz but will try to avoid any unpleasantness that arises sometimes on these wonderful discussion boards. Life is too short

x

[Ben]

Hi Beebs,

Yep, he involved himself in the investigation in 2004, and that proved to be his undoing.

So great to be corresponding with you again. I've just spent a fantastic three and a half months in Australia, where I had the time of my life.

Hi Fisherman,

Congratulations on your 8000th post! Surely you must be a rung up from a "commissioner" by now.

You raise some interesting points, but bear in mind that Rader wasn't just a stalker. He was an organised and adaptable serial killer who recognised that different crime scenes necessitated a different type of pre-crime approach. The ripper was obviously no different, and he was certainly no robot. If we're prepared to acknowledge that he could alter the type of venue he chose to target, i.e. a tiny room in an enclosed court as opposed to the open streets, then we ought to make similar allowances for "alteration" in terms of his approach to that type of venue.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

True enough, Rader was a stalker, who chose his victims and set out to map their movements for many a day before moving in for the strike.

The problem is that the Ripper does not seem to have been this type of killer - he seems to have been an opportunist, taking what came his way. Eddowes, not least, seems to verify this view.

If Kelly was carefully selected and stalked, then she seemingly differs from the other victims - or at least from the normal perception of how they came to be targetted.

All the best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

yes

by his own admission he stalked many of his victims. Thank goodness he did interfere though otherwise there may have been more victims.

Hope all is well with you too Benz I've been better but also been worse! So can't complain (much)

x

[Ben]

Absolutely, Beebs.

Rader is indeed a good example of some who interfered with the investigation. He also loitered opposite the scene of the Otero murder for some time before entering the building.

Hope all's well x

[babybird67]

thank you for the link Benz...

I will have a look.

I saw a documentary recently on BTK - they had footage of him speaking about his crimes during his trial - I cannot believe the cold bloodedness of the man. But he was a more modern example of someone who interfered with the investigation in that he continually wrote letters and left clues etc. I doubt he would have been caught if he hadn't done those things.

Beebs x

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Many thanks for so clearly demonstrating your ignorance concerning a) what a howler actually is, and where you have or haven't made one

A "howler" is a fruit-eating South American monkey, and no, I haven't made one yet.

But you're right on one level; I should extend an apology to David Canter. It was quite wrong of me to accept uncritically your unsourced paraphrasing of his alleged views on the diary without properly acquainting myself with his actual views, as set down in print. Having now done so, I note that at no stage has he been recorded as saying that the diary is "legit" or that the psychology is "spot on" for the ripper. Accepting that he is neither an historian nor a document examiner, we are interested only in his observations as a psychologist, and one of his conclusions was that "it certainly was written by somebody who knows what it feels like to be angry and vicious".

I have no problem with that. I'm quite sure that whatever weirdo hoaxed the diary was a troubled soul, and probably no stranger to violence (and perhaps drugs and alcohol too). Nor do I have any objection to the notion that the hoaxer had more in common, psychologically, with Jack the Ripper than he did James Maybrick.

So try as you might to get me to say something bad about David Canter (and so undermine my references to his expertise on Hutchinson threads), you're going to struggle, I'm afraid.

[caz]

Hello Ben,

Many thanks for so clearly demonstrating your ignorance concerning a) what a howler actually is, and where you have or haven't made one, and b) David Canter's opinions on the Maybrick diary.

Your naive description of how you fondly imagine Canter studied the text, and what he concluded from it, only serves to insult the man's expertise. You clearly imply that any fool could have done the same. Odd, considering you use his expertise at every opportunity on the Hutch threads to support your own lost cause.

Even odder, considering Canter believes the diary is legit (or at least he did in 2003 when I met him in Liverpool). So what is he now in your eyes? Expert or blithering idiot?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

and if the gist of those words were

WAS! Not "were".

If I were to wrote

WRITE! Not "wrote".

Could someone please administer a light smacking of my bottom for the above "howlers"?