The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[jmenges]

Hi Christer,

Thanks for your reply.

If you think that is simplistic, letīs not forget that you ground your take on a belief that you have already pinned down what the Ripper was about, motivationwise. And I think that may be a tad premature.

No I do not believe I've pinned down what the Ripper was all about, and have never said as much. What I said was:

Whereas JtR had an element of mission-killing to his crimes.

I said this because the same FBI who you cite have identified four distinct types of motive. Visionary, mission-orientated, hedonistic and power/control.

We know very little about JtR but one thing we do know is that he specifically targeted prostitutes, putting him in the mission-orientated category while BTK lives comfortably in the power/control category. This is why I believe is it not particularly useful to draw comparisons between the two.

JM

[The Good Michael]

I did. He made a comparison without knowing a manīs thoughts at all, as far as I can see. He concluded that "JtR had an element of mission-killing to his crimes."

"an element" means just a component or part, yes? The victims were all prostitutes (though some would disagree), and though police were pretty prolifically placed on the streets, he still seems to have had to kill. Having to do something is a mission. And if that isn't the full reason, and perhaps he killed also because he thought the pain from his bunions might stop if he did, compulsion was an element. Or would you disagree? And let's get this straight: You are the one making a case for a serial murderer without knowing a thing about his motive and his reasoning, and then you compare to BTK as a reference. How is that possible? Rhetorical question. Please don't answer it.

Mike

[Robert]

I see, so Paul is walking along, he tries to avoid Crossmere, who then intercepts him and draws his attention to the body. And yet Paul 'stumbles over' Crossmere.

There's nothing like putting things fairly and without bias, is there, Fish.

[Fisherman]

I know I'm only a third of the way through this thread, but the idea that the first to find the body is a suspect bothers me a little. PC Neil said he was the first to find poor Polly- should we suspect him as well? Perhaps his telling the reporters that yes, he'd found the dead woman, was the killer wanting a little credit. (Note: this is an amateur's far-fetched question, so don't take it too seriously.)

Pat D.

It is NOT just about finding the body first. Howard Carter found Tutanchamon, and I donīt think he killed the pharaoh.

Lechmere was found standing alone with the victim. There can be no knowing for how long he had been alone with her. We have no corroboration for the carmans story. Paul says nothing about having heard or seen Lechmere until he stumbled over him outside Browns. And, first and foremost, Nichols was still bleeding from her neck when PC Mizen saw her, at least five or six minutes after Lechmere had left her. And we have a pathologist saying that with the kind of damage she had, she would have bled out in a couple of minutes.

So we effectively know that if it was NOT Lechmere, then it was somebody else who cut her immediately before Lechmere arrived. And even that seems a stretch, since she should only have bled for a couple of minutes. If we have another killer than Lechmere, then she must have bled for seven or eight minutes or even longer.

In other words, she would have been cut during the period when we cannot account for where Lechmere was - the minutes leading up to Paul finding him, without having heard him walk 30-40 yards in front of him.

So itīs not just about having found Nichols.

The best,
Fisherman

[Pcdunn]

Hi,

I agree with Stewart, these poeple cannot defend themselves. Someone finds a body. With every murder someone finds a body. If you carry that argument forward to its logical conclusion...

I know I'm only a third of the way through this thread, but the idea that the first to find the body is a suspect bothers me a little. PC Neil said he was the first to find poor Polly- should we suspect him as well? Perhaps his telling the reporters that yes, he'd found the dead woman, was the killer wanting a little credit. (Note: this is an amateur's far-fetched question, so don't take it too seriously.)

Pat D.

[Fisherman]

Good thoughts there. To even make a comparison without knowing a man's thoughts at all makes no sense anyway. To infer thoughts from what one believes were actions, is cart before the horse stuff. Lechmerians please read JM's thoughts.

Mke

I did. He made a comparison without knowing a manīs thoughts at all, as far as I can see. He concluded that "JtR had an element of mission-killing to his crimes."

He also established that the Ripper would not have been about "a sexual predator with a bondage fetish who got off on the intense, prolonged, power and control he had over his victims."

Whether he could have been "a sexual predator ... who got off on the intense ... power and control he had over his victims", is something he never discussed. The Ripper was pressed for time, and Rader was not. Even with Kelly, the Ripper could not afford to do anything but quickly kill her, the walls being paper-thin.
Some killers think that killing is exercising the ultimate control, and get a tremendeous kick from that. I donīt exclude that eviscerating can be a means of "control" either: to own the other person, to rule all the bits and pieces, to extract parts from them, take them over ...

Anyhow, I cannot see that either thing has been established with the Ripper. Can you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Going a bit off topic to clarify something---
Dennis Rader is unique in the annals of serial killing, and, from what we know about JtR, does not resemble him in any way. They are completely different types of serial killers. Rader was a sexual predator with a bondage fetish who got off on the intense, prolonged, power and control he had over his victims. Whereas JtR had an element of mission-killing to his crimes. BTK didn't stop. This is a myth. He was captured at the end of a long period between kills. Plus, his "cooling off period" wasn't a cool-off at all. He still stalked women, planned murders, participated in bondage rituals with his trophies he took from his victims, photographed himself dozens and dozens of times dressed in clothing he stole from his victims, all to feed his massively violent fantasies. He actively stalked one of his "projects" in the mid-nineties to the point of her getting a restraining order out against him, stalked another woman in Topeka, Kansas in the late 1990s, and had targeted another woman he planned on killing in October 2004, but he was arrested before he could attack. To say "all we have to know to make the comparison completely viable" is that they were violent and possibly had sexual motives (most serial killers have a combination of "motives") is so utterly simplistic I'm surprised to have read it.

JM

All serial killers will deviate in some way(s).

We donīt know what the Ripper was about. Whether he had an element of mission-killing in what he did is anybodyīs guess - but no more than that.

I donīt think the FBI would have included Rader in their work unless they had reason to. They interviewed him in depth, they knew about his fantasies and so on, but they nevertheless thought him a useful example in this context. There would have been reasons for that.

The Ripper and the men exemplified with by the FBI all killed violently. There is a very good resaon to suggest that there were elements of sexuality built in to their deeds.

Far form making the deeds identical, it still applies that it amkes for a useful ground to suggest that the Ripper could perhaps also have substituted his killings with something else.

If you think that is simplistic, letīs not forget that you ground your take on a belief that you have already pinned down what the Ripper was about, motivationwise. And I think that may be a tad premature.

My suggestion built on a simple model partly for the very reason that I donīt think we can take it upon ourselves to fully describe the motivations and driving forces behind the Ripper deeds.

Your thoughts are interesting, līll give you that. And you may be correct. But thatīs just "may".

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Going a bit off topic to clarify something---
Dennis Rader is unique in the annals of serial killing, and, from what we know about JtR, does not resemble him in any way. They are completely different types of serial killers. Rader was a sexual predator with a bondage fetish who got off on the intense, prolonged, power and control he had over his victims. Whereas JtR had an element of mission-killing to his crimes. BTK didn't stop. This is a myth. He was captured at the end of a long period between kills. Plus, his "cooling off period" wasn't a cool-off at all. He still stalked women, planned murders, participated in bondage rituals with his trophies he took from his victims, photographed himself dozens and dozens of times dressed in clothing he stole from his victims, all to feed his massively violent fantasies. He actively stalked one of his "projects" in the mid-nineties to the point of her getting a restraining order out against him, stalked another woman in Topeka, Kansas in the late 1990s, and had targeted another woman he planned on killing in October 2004, but he was arrested before he could attack. To say "all we have to know to make the comparison completely viable" is that they were violent and possibly had sexual motives (most serial killers have a combination of "motives") is so utterly simplistic I'm surprised to have read it.

JM

Good thoughts there. To even make a comparison without knowing a man's thoughts at all makes no sense anyway. To infer thoughts from what one believes were actions, is cart before the horse stuff. Lechmerians please read JM's thoughts.

Mke

[jmenges]

Going a bit off topic to clarify something---
Dennis Rader is unique in the annals of serial killing, and, from what we know about JtR, does not resemble him in any way. They are completely different types of serial killers. Rader was a sexual predator with a bondage fetish who got off on the intense, prolonged, power and control he had over his victims. Whereas JtR had an element of mission-killing to his crimes. BTK didn't stop. This is a myth. He was captured at the end of a long period between kills. Plus, his "cooling off period" wasn't a cool-off at all. He still stalked women, planned murders, participated in bondage rituals with his trophies he took from his victims, photographed himself dozens and dozens of times dressed in clothing he stole from his victims, all to feed his massively violent fantasies. He actively stalked one of his "projects" in the mid-nineties to the point of her getting a restraining order out against him, stalked another woman in Topeka, Kansas in the late 1990s, and had targeted another woman he planned on killing in October 2004, but he was arrested before he could attack. To say "all we have to know to make the comparison completely viable" is that they were violent and possibly had sexual motives (most serial killers have a combination of "motives") is so utterly simplistic I'm surprised to have read it.

JM

[The Good Michael]

Fish, I have a better idea : if you think that 'by the side of' is such a flexible expression, perhaps you could tell me
1. Was Mrs Crossmere by the side of Nichols?
2. Was the Emperor of China by the side of Nichols?
3. Was the planet Mars by the side of Nichols?
And if not, why not?

BTW, I enjoyed your joke about the police not investigating Crossmere because he was English. I guess they must have thought the slaughterers hailed from Baffinland.

Robert,

As horrifying as it may sound, wherever you are, I'm at your side. I'm sure we can poetically say that this is how Cross felt about his victim...not that you are a victim...yet.

Mike

[Robert]

Fish, I have a better idea : if you think that 'by the side of' is such a flexible expression, perhaps you could tell me
1. Was Mrs Crossmere by the side of Nichols?
2. Was the Emperor of China by the side of Nichols?
3. Was the planet Mars by the side of Nichols?
And if not, why not?

BTW, I enjoyed your joke about the police not investigating Crossmere because he was English. I guess they must have thought the slaughterers hailed from Baffinland.

[Fisherman]

Fish, if you don't know what is meant by 'by the side of' then good luck with trying to define 'sexual.'

And the same to you, Robert! Or do YOU know exactly what is meant by "by the side of"?

Will people living by the side of the Bristol Canal be able to dip their toes in it from their houses? Did Albert live by the side of Victoria? Were the arches in the Pinchin Street railway viaduct situated by the side of each other? Did the twin towers of the World Trade center in New York stand by each otherīs sides?īIf a man sitting in a chair two yards from his crying wife says: "Donīt worry, dear, Iīm here, right by your side", does he lie when claiming that? Or will his wife not understand and say: "No, you are not. You are by Robertīs definition too far from me to be by my side"?

I find the question a lot more unclear than you will have it be, Robert. But since you seemingly DO know the exact answer, letīs have it! At what exact distance from a body are you no longer standing by itīs side? I want it in meters and centimeters, for I have grown tired of this charade by now. Letīs put an end to it, and letīs use your exact measure to do so!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, if you don't know what is meant by 'by the side of' then good luck with trying to define 'sexual.'

[Fisherman]

Resemblances are easy to find if you're looking for them.

Violent deaths, quite probably caused by motives of a sexual nature. Thatīs all we have to know to make the comparison completely viable. Note that just like the Ripper, Rader did not rape his victims either, although the character of his deeds was explicitely sexual.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

Yes it is factually wrong. Paul described Lechmere as standing "in the middle of the road" and that is not "where the body was". Lechmere took Paul to the body.

Paul actually used these exact words in his paper interview: "Standing where the body was". And unless you can provide the exact distances involved when it is said that somebody is standing by the side of somebody else, Iīm afraid you have no argument, Colin.

So do I and the overwhelming likelihood, therefore, is that, by whatever means, Lechmere was closely scrutinised and cleared of suspicion.

Here we go again: Why did they not procure his real name if that was the case? Why does not a single report or paper speak of any interrogation or checkout? Why does not Dew, who vividly remembers the hunt for Paul recall that Lechmere was dug into?

They-did-not-check-him-out, Colin. And in all likelyhood, his doube appearance with the police, seemingly out of his own free will, can have been what sealed the deal. Plus they were not looking for anybody like Lechmere. Even Queen Victoria threw her pennyīs worth in from Buckingham Palace, stating that whoever it was, it was no Englishman!

The best,
Fisherman