Tweet
Yes, great points, Abby and Mike.
Sorry to hear that, John. I thought I’d been reasonably clear and concise, but evidently not. I’ll briefly summarise the five paragraphs of my previous post, and we’ll try again to “identify the salient points”.
1) It’s completely circular to rule out “Aussie George” on the basis that Jack the Ripper’s crimes were very consistent. If Jack the Ripper was “Aussie George” then they weren’t. Simple as that.
2) Aussie George’s crimes and those of the ripper both belong in the “sexual” category, at least according to the experts whose work you cite, whereas Klosowski’s (for instance) don’t.
3) You don’t tend to acknowledge the evidence I provide in the form of known examples of offenders whose crimes spanned different ages and genders, nor do you provide any actual statistics to back up your assertion that such offenders are “exceptionally rare”.
4) I used the example of Nathaniel Code (and he was one in several, in fact) to counter your claim that Shawcross was “exceptionally rare” to target both woman and boys, and now, all of a sudden, you’re acquainted with that seldom discussed Louisiana serial case.
5) Fanciers of the discredited “Astrakhan man” as Kelly’s killer tend, from my experience, to be those who haven’t quite relinquished the outdated idea of the Ripper as a Dashing Doc in a top hat – or variations on that theme.
The problem is that you continue to misappropriate criminological buzzwords such as “signature”. You say, for instance: “are you seriously arguing that the crime signature of a flasher…”, but this makes absolutely no sense. A “signature” is a strictly personal calling card wherein the offender puts his personal, depraved stamp on a crime, just as our written signatures are unique to us. Since we are not in possession of any evidence to suggest that Aussie George put a personal stamp on his child abuse, it follows that his were not “signature” crimes.
Jack the Ripper had a crime signature, of course, but to apply it he needed a prostitute, her internal organs and a sharp knife. If, for whatever reason, these components were unavailable, or he wanted to “lie low”, or if there was something about the environment that prevented the efficient commission of that type of crime, there was nothing physically preventing him from committing a different type of sexual offense. It’s really rather silly to insist otherwise; akin to arguing that a professional javelin thrower would never go skiing.
Incidentally, I don’t accept the argument that the ripper focussed exclusively on “what makes women women”. Besides the uterus and the breasts (and there’s no evidence that the latter were especially prioritized), he also focussed on the non-gender-specific face, bladder, heart and kidneys. There is a good deal to be said for the argument that female prostitutes were targeted because they were the most readily available at that time and place. I’m not suggesting that women were not his victim type of preference, but on the other hand, pre-teen boys tended not to litter the streets of the East End at 2.00am.
The only thing we discard – and “happily” at that - is your misapplication of the term “signature”. Since there is not the slightest evidence that the known crimes of “Aussie George” contained “signature elements”, I consider myself absolved of any necessity to explain what you erroneously regard as a huge “transformation”. The best you can argue is that the ripper demonstrated a consistent signature when he was murdering and eviscerating prostitutes.
Regards,
Ben
P.S. Could those requesting evidence that this man was "ever" in the East End please try to understand that in order to have boarded the ship that took him to Australia, he had to have been in the East End, even if he’d taken the boat train from John O’Groats the night before departure.
“I have read your last post several times, which unfortunately did seem to me to be a little incomprehensible at times.”
1) It’s completely circular to rule out “Aussie George” on the basis that Jack the Ripper’s crimes were very consistent. If Jack the Ripper was “Aussie George” then they weren’t. Simple as that.
2) Aussie George’s crimes and those of the ripper both belong in the “sexual” category, at least according to the experts whose work you cite, whereas Klosowski’s (for instance) don’t.
3) You don’t tend to acknowledge the evidence I provide in the form of known examples of offenders whose crimes spanned different ages and genders, nor do you provide any actual statistics to back up your assertion that such offenders are “exceptionally rare”.
4) I used the example of Nathaniel Code (and he was one in several, in fact) to counter your claim that Shawcross was “exceptionally rare” to target both woman and boys, and now, all of a sudden, you’re acquainted with that seldom discussed Louisiana serial case.
5) Fanciers of the discredited “Astrakhan man” as Kelly’s killer tend, from my experience, to be those who haven’t quite relinquished the outdated idea of the Ripper as a Dashing Doc in a top hat – or variations on that theme.
The problem is that you continue to misappropriate criminological buzzwords such as “signature”. You say, for instance: “are you seriously arguing that the crime signature of a flasher…”, but this makes absolutely no sense. A “signature” is a strictly personal calling card wherein the offender puts his personal, depraved stamp on a crime, just as our written signatures are unique to us. Since we are not in possession of any evidence to suggest that Aussie George put a personal stamp on his child abuse, it follows that his were not “signature” crimes.
Jack the Ripper had a crime signature, of course, but to apply it he needed a prostitute, her internal organs and a sharp knife. If, for whatever reason, these components were unavailable, or he wanted to “lie low”, or if there was something about the environment that prevented the efficient commission of that type of crime, there was nothing physically preventing him from committing a different type of sexual offense. It’s really rather silly to insist otherwise; akin to arguing that a professional javelin thrower would never go skiing.
Incidentally, I don’t accept the argument that the ripper focussed exclusively on “what makes women women”. Besides the uterus and the breasts (and there’s no evidence that the latter were especially prioritized), he also focussed on the non-gender-specific face, bladder, heart and kidneys. There is a good deal to be said for the argument that female prostitutes were targeted because they were the most readily available at that time and place. I’m not suggesting that women were not his victim type of preference, but on the other hand, pre-teen boys tended not to litter the streets of the East End at 2.00am.
“To summarize, tilt seems to me that your argument has narrowed to the issue of age and gender, I.e you simply argue that as some serial killer's target victims of both genders, and accross all age groups, then Aussie George cannot be ruled out as JtR. However, as I've pointed out they are not signature elements so happily such arguments can be views as incidental and can be safely discarded.”
Regards,
Ben
P.S. Could those requesting evidence that this man was "ever" in the East End please try to understand that in order to have boarded the ship that took him to Australia, he had to have been in the East End, even if he’d taken the boat train from John O’Groats the night before departure.
Comment