Apparently by design

[Sam Flynn]

I have just joined this site a few days ago and saw that you are the casebook supporter

...one of many, I hope, Wiz!

I have a question as to the suspects, is there a record as to how many times each one was called in to the station for questioning about their suspicious behavior?

The answer is "no", as far as I'm aware. The records are patchy at best, and there's no detailed roll-call of suspects that I know of.

Welcome to Casebook, anyway - and a Merry Christmas

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Mr Sam Flynn

Hello Sam,

I have just joined this site a few days ago and saw that you are the casebook supporter, a fine title at that.

I have a question as to the suspects, is there a record as to how many times each one was called in to the station for questioning about their suspicious behavior? and who was call the most times?

Thank you for your support, no pun intended.

BW

Hi Folks,

Missed a few points due to some golf, but just would add that I enjoyed Dans article a great deal too. Well researched and a story with a spine...a good piece, thought provoking.

My position is that these situations we look at are not like math equations, where a fixed set of numbers just needs to be calculated to arrive at a solution. This is more like a long distance snipers situation, where everything about the situation has to be factored to be able to take out something in a foot square space 2000 yards away. Temperature, air currents, humidity, time of day, of year, height, trajectory path for a 6 second flight..

Its no different than this study I think. What, where, who, when, year, place, social climate, economic climate, police resident relations, plots brewing, power struggles....this has it all....and its all potentially relevant.

So "by design" has a myriad of possible interpretations.

Best regards all.

[paul emmett]

Well, if anyone is unsure about my intent in writing the article, they could always ask... but in the end people will have to come to their own conclusions about it.

Thanks, Dan.

I guess you can tell that I liked it, even though I think I interpeted the telling examples that you provided of Jack living up to his billings as him being more playful than you did. It made me want to look for other examples, both in JTR's killings and those of other serial killers. And it made me look at an old subject in a new way.

Oh, the reason above was indeed why I wouldn't have asked you, but I appreciated your explanation.

Thanks, Sam.

We did get there.

[Dan Norder]

Well, if anyone is unsure about my intent in writing the article, they could always ask... but in the end people will have to come to their own conclusions about it. I specifically wrote it very open ended because I thought the instances of false reports coming true later as well as the concept of the killer changing to live up to his own legend were important enough that they needed to be presented without too strong of an accompanying opinion about their meaning. All too often in this field people disagree with a conclusion and then toss out the evidence that was being used to support it as well, and I didn't want that to happen.

Well, that and I don't tend to jump to strong conclusions anyway. I'm a "follow the evidence" kind of person, and we just don't have enough of it for most of the conclusions people want to make in this field.

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe if I emend "showing" to "suggesting"?

That will do nicely! At least we both understand what each other meant now

[paul emmett]

For absolute clarity let me rephrase your words, hopefully in a manner that is both fair, and which gives my view on the article at the same time:

"Dan's article Heartless does a fine job of presenting a case for the argument that JTR may have copycatted his publicity".

Sam, there are two things at issue: one that, philisophically if you will, I don't think anyone can say what an authour intended. I take it we agree here; I never said Dan intended . . .. The other point is how convinced we were by the article. Your above paraphrase is what you think, AND it doesn't claim that I know what Dan intended. GOOD! But it's not a paraphrase of what I had said because I wanted to convey that I found the article convincing. 100%? Nothing is. So I said, "'Heartless' does a fine job of showing that JTR copycatted himself." And that's what I still think. Maybe if I emend "showing" to "suggesting"?

I just read on another thread that you had written on the O letter. I regret that it was lost, because I am interested in both the allusions and the rhythmns.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, let ME repeat. I never maintained that "Dan set out to demonstrate" anything!

The way in which you phrased your assertion did precisely that - apologies if you didn't intend that, but that's how it came out.

Indeed, in the very quote of mine that you headed your first disagreement with, I had said, "DAN'S ARTICLE 'Heartless' does a fine job of showing that JTR copycatted himself."

Exactly - which is why I raised the issue with you in the first place. One would be forgiven, from reading your summation of the article, of thinking that it shows categorically that Jack was a copycat - it didn't. It merely argues the case and offers it as a possibility.

For absolute clarity let me rephrase your words, hopefully in a manner that is both fair, and which gives my view on the article at the same time:

"Dan's article Heartless does a fine job of presenting a case for the argument that JTR may have copycatted his publicity".

[paul emmett]

And, to repeat: I really don't think Dan set out to demonstrate that JTR copycatted his own publicity, which is what you maintained earlier. He merely presented a fair case for the idea, and offered it up as a possibility. Nothing more.

Sam, let ME repeat. I never maintained that "Dan set out to demonstrate" anything! Indeed, in the very quote of mine that you headed your first disagreement with, I had said, "DAN'S ARTICLE 'Heartless' does a fine job of showing that JTR copycatted himself."

I was never presuming to say what Dan believed or intended; I only discussed what his article demonstrated to me. And since you have already noted that you can't presume to say what Dan intended, all we are left with is our reactions to "Heartless." And I just think that I found it more convincing that you did.

Ben, The Wright thing is most interesting. I do think that what I take to be the thesis of "Heartless" can be expanded for JTR and beyond him.

[Ben]

I must say, the idea that the killer may have derived inspiration from reports of criminal activity wrongly attributed to him (such as false report of a chalked message or a missing heart etc) seems quite plausible to me. I believe Steve Wright did something similar in the Ipswitch series, if memory serves. It was stated at the time that he had posed the bodies in a psuedo-angelic or "crucifix" style. Wright didn't so anything of the sort until those reports appeared.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

What in the world would be the sense in working so hard to demonstrate something you didn't believe?

There is nothing wrong with setting out the evidence for a case in which one doesn't firmly believe, if the aim is to establish a level playing field for one argument amongst others - in fact, it's a positively civilised thing to do. One doesn't need to advocate a given position in order to assess and/or present the evidence for it. Lawyers do it practically every day - so it's not as if it's unusual either.

And, to repeat: I really don't think Dan set out to demonstrate that JTR copycatted his own publicity, which is what you maintained earlier. He merely presented a fair case for the idea, and offered it up as a possibility. Nothing more.

[paul emmett]

Not pretending to know his mind either, so as a general theoretical question: What in the world would be the sense in working so hard to demonstrate something you didn't believe--at least to a degree?? Besides, sidestepping the intentional fallacy, I did say that his article shows . . ..

[Sam Flynn]

I think Dan's article "Heartless" does a fine job of showing that JTR copycatted himself.

Not pretending to "know his mind", my summation of Dan's fine article is that he was only offering up the notion of "Jack-as-Copycat" as a possibility. I don't think it fair to conclude that Dan intended to show, or believes, that JTR was a copycat at all.

[paul emmett]

Liz was apparently holding the cashous...the fact that the wrapper is locked in her grip doesnt seem to lead to a conclusion it was placed there by her killer...she had them in her hand when attacked...something that probably lasted a second or two.



I believe the evidence in # 13 suggests a killer that chose to create a Ripper scene on the spot...not before he entered her room.

Hi, Michael. I just have some scattered points.

When I said "intestine" in my last post, I too was referring to the piece of colon placed between E's arm and body.

I fear I'm becoming the cachous advocate, but your phrase "locked in her grip" is too strong. Some reports say "in," some say "holding," and Swanson says "lying in hand." Blackwell says, the left hand was "nearly open" with the packet "lodged between the thumb and forefinger." Like everything else in this case, this is a bit ambiguous. I don't see it as locked because the hand is nearly open, not clenched. Taken with Swanson's "lying," "lodged" could even suggest agency--had been lodged. Whatever it is, I say that if Stride is pulled back by her scarf, she's dropping them.

I know what you feel about Kelly's killer, and I know you marshal a telling list of differences, so I'm not going that way. But I would like to say three things. One, the positioning of Kelly's body is so similar to Chapman's, that you--or at least I--would think the killer would have done a better overall job of imitating. Two, if he is dancing in the dark about what to take from the scene, I would think he would take ears, considering all the publicity "Dear, Boss" must have gotten. Three, I think Dan's article "Heartless" does a fine job of showing that JTR copycatted himself--or rather copycatted that popular image of himself--like a heart taker--which you, in turn, refer to.

Have a good day.

Hi Paul,

I know what youre saying, but in terms of anything that we can interpret by using only the crime scenes as evidence, it is only certain that 1 victim had "things" deliberately placed by the body...in Marys case, under her head and extremities.

The intestines of Annie and Kate were likely taken out and placed out of the killers way...not a "design", but a gesture of utility...they needed to go somewhere out of the way. So what the real mysteries are with other Canonicals are the items left by Annie, the glasses case and torn envelope corner, are they there as a result of being shaken free, or flew from her inner skirt pocket when the killer ripped it open,.. why are her rings gone... why a two foot section of colon is cut off and it ended up between Kates arm and body, why the thimble and tea tin were loose. Liz was apparently holding the cashous...the fact that the wrapper is locked in her grip doesnt seem to lead to a conclusion it was placed there by her killer...she had them in her hand when attacked...something that probably lasted a second or two. Why she had them out...I think leads to a question of her level of fear just prior to her death...

The only element above that could be "design" at first glance is the colon section...and I suspect he just tired of having it impede him. My point was that before starting to concoct a rationale for all the "posed" elements of the crime scenes, best to be sure what ones likely were posed. Using pocket contents found on the ground is not sure footing.

If the killer in room 13, after killing Mary, wanted to create an environment that a Ripper would leave, he would be placing things about, like he read Jack does...only he didnt know why Jack did that, or what if any organs were his targets to take home. I believe the reason that a few actions commenced on Mary Kelly were incomplete...like thigh flesh removal, is because as he created the scene he was remembering... things he'd read or heard...and would abruptly stop one action to re-create a specific other action as it occurred to him.

I believe the evidence in # 13 suggests a killer that chose to create a Ripper scene on the spot...not before he entered her room.

Cheers Paul