Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by rjpalmer 1 hour and 25 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by John G 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Robert 6 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by John Wheat 8 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by FrankO 9 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by moste 12 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (7 posts)
Visual Media: London 1924 in colour - (6 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (5 posts)
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (3 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4031  
Old 05-09-2018, 05:15 AM
FrankO FrankO is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
Frank?
Yup, itís me, Christer.
Quote:
Anyways, you are welcome to the shooting gallery!
Thanks! Although I'm not sure that I will remain for long.
Quote:
Here, you are presupposing that you know his driving force, Frank, and I am anything but sure that you do.
I do not claim to know what his motivation was, I donít even think the Ripper would be able to tell what it was, but I do think that serial killers have dark fantasies that drive them and that they will try to live out these fantasies to the fullest, depending on the circumstances. Subsequently, what is found at the crime scene will give the police/us an idea of what this fantasy looked like. Organised serial killers will try to create the best circumstances, which boils down to trying to kill in privacy; disorganised serial killers donít bother to try and create the right circumstances and will settle for less or very little privacy.

Quote:
You also predispose that he would have gone further with the Ripper victims given the time, but I donīt think that necessarily applies either.
That would depend on the fantasy the Ripper was following, but looking at the Ripper crimes, I do see a pattern that is followed and I donít think anyone can deny this pattern.

Quote:
But what drove him? Can we know?
We can be sure that he was driven by the dark fantasy that was created in his mind years before he killed.

Quote:
How would he know that he had little time? He would have time until somebody came along, and that could be ten seconds or ten minutes or half an hour.
He couldnít know how much time he would have with each victim, but Iím sure you will agree that he couldnít count on much, meaning a few minutes or the time a knee-trembler generally took. Therefore, he at least did what he wanted the most.

Quote:
With Eddowes, he took the uterus and the kidney, and carved the face and cut the nosetip off. Since no reports were made about faeces in the facial wounds, it seems they preceded the abdominal carving. Why do you think that was? And why did he take a kidney too if a uterus was his desire?
Even though he may have cut her face before he cut her abdomen, which I think may have taken only 10 or 20 seconds, it didnít refrain him from cutting out the uterus through the opening he had cut in the abdomen. Furthermore, I donít claim that cutting out the uterus was his only desire. I only know that, when he had little time, he went for that part of the female body that (out in the streets) was under the skirts, which he did in 4 cases out of the 4 he mutilated and he cut out the uterus in 3 of these cases. When he had more time, he did more (as his fantasy comprised of more than only opening the abdomen and cutting out the uterus). So, in the case of Eddowes, he must have had more time.

Quote:
So what was this desire? What did it stipulate? And why?
What his desire was exactly, we canít know and I donít claim to know. I only go by what the Ripper did to his victims, with Kelly giving the best idea of what he wanted. My personal idea is that, on the one hand, he was very interested in the female body, very curious about it, while, on the other, he felt a fierce rage towards women, which resulted in what the Ripper did to his victims. That the cutting was directed towards those parts of the body that the Ripper found sexually significant is to be expected, according to Vernon Geberth. He is a retired Lieutenant-Commander of the New York City Police Department with over 40 years of law enforcement experience and he has written a number of books on murder, including cases of post-mortem mutilation.

Quote:
I think that the Ripper murders were slayings where he was not worried about being meticulous or exact because he knew that he would probably be pressed for time. So he set about things quickly and produced sloppier results. But the gist was the same - disassemble the woman into parts in one way or another.
I agree that, if Torso man and the Ripper are to be one and the same, the Ripper murders would be sloppier and less meticulous. But not different in the way Kelly differed from the Torso victims. Furthermore, I donít agree with your view that he would disassemble the woman into parts one way or the other. The Ripper crimes give us a pattern. Iím not sure the Torso murders do and if they do, they give a different pattern.

Quote:
He strived, if I am correct, after a result that could only reach near perfection if he had time and seclusion enough to cut meticulously and exactly, the way he did when he took the face off the 1873 victim.
That doesnít make sense. If youíre saying that what the Torso victims looked like was as close as he could get to his fantasy, then why did he do less to them than what was done to Kelly while he had at least about as much time the Ripper spent with Kelly and, probably, more?

Quote:
Not less - quicker.
No, definitely less, in the sense that less time = less time to do as he pleased, less time to enjoy, less/no light to see what he was doing and enjoy that. This is a big difference with the Torso series.

Quote:
Kelly was more, not less, remember.
I do remember, Christer. But the Ripper couldnít know beforehand that he would have more time and privacy with Kelly. Unless we assume that he knew she got a place of her own. But it turned out that he did have more time with Kelly and it strikes me that he did indeed do more to her than what was done to the torso victims.

Quote:
And your thinking only works if you have made a correct identification of his driving force. I donīt think you have.
Thatís not true. It is as good as a simple fact that the Ripper had less time with his victims (apart from perhaps Kelly) than Torso man had with his.

Quote:
There are many examples of killers with a narcissistic thinking who have gotten more and more careless, taking larger and larger risks.
You mean killers who first kill 4 or 5 women in privacy over a period of years, then kill 3 or 4 out in the streets (with perhaps one lucky shot indoors) in only a couple of months, only then to return to killing at a slower pace in privacy? If you do mean this, then please give me some examples.

Quote:
I would have been more worried about how he goes back to the torso mode instead of developing an increasingly risky MO altogether.
Thatís another thing that has me wondering.

Quote:
But basically, what you are asking is "Can a killer really do it like that?", and the answer is "Yes, it is obvious since the siilarities give him away."
Iím not claiming that a serial couldnít do it like that, Iím suggesting that it would be rare.

Quote:
You say cases where a killer goes from security to risktaking are not to be expected.
Not in the way (or very similar to how) it was done in the Torso and Ripper series (if they are to have been committed by one and the same man), no.

Quote:
How expected is it to find two killer in the same town and time with so many baffling similarities, Frank?
Based on statistics it isnít to be expected. But I wonder how much stock we can put into statistics. If you only list the similarities or lump them together in one sentence, you might regard them as ďso manyĒ and ďbafflingĒ, but when you look at it the way I do, it becomes less so.

Quote:
The cutting of the soft part of the neck and throat, the opening of the abdomen, the taking of the heart, the taking of the uterus, the taking away of the abdominal wall in flaps, the vanishing rings leaving wrench marks on the fingers, the commonality in how no obvious torture was applied , all of these things
Ah, thereís that list/lumping in one sentence againÖ
Quote:
- how do you explain them? Coincidence?
I would explain them by two different killers (although Iím not convinced that all the torso victims were the work of one man, but thatís perhaps because I may not know everything there is to know about the 1873, 1874 and 1884 cases).

Cheers,
Frank
__________________
"You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"
Quick reply to this message
  #4032  
Old 05-09-2018, 05:17 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
It's a shame that these debates become so adversarial in nature, usually on account of posters airing old grievances. The possibility of a connection between the Ripper & Thames Torso series should be an interesting and thought-provoking discussion if you approach it with an open-mind. There's nothing in the rulebook that says that a serial killer can't deviate in their MO & signature, particularly when we have no idea of the circumstances they were operating under. I know it's self-evident but it bears repeating that since the perpetrator(s) of these crimes were never caught, none of us can make definitive statements on the killer's bio. As for Fish, I see him as doubling-down on his convictions to make a point against mass scepticism, that's all.

Look at it this way, multi-killer theorists have tried to separate the canonical five because of perceived discrepancies in skill-level and behaviour. The Ripper took the uterus from Chapman. He took the uterus AND a kidney from Eddowes. Why the kidney? He removed the uterus (along with everything else) from Mary Kelly, but only took the heart this time. This begs the question whether the uteri bore significance to the killer or not? What changed for him to leave it behind this time? Unless it wasn't the same killer behind the other Whitechapel victims, but what are the odds of that? I don't think we can take anything for granted and presume that the killer should have always done 'x' because of 'y'. In the case of the Ripper & Torsos, what we have are two series of gruesome murders with geographical overlap that betray a need to dehumanize and deconstruct their prey, be it via mutilation and/or dismemberment. That doesn't mean they were performed by the same hand, but it doesn't mean the possibility should be disregarded either.
Hi Harry,

I actually agree.
I have said many times that while i do not rule out a link, i see nothing presented so far that can in my opinion be seen as suggested the "links" are significant or as Christer calls them "true".
We should be able to agree to disagree should we not?
But when you get told agree of you are "bias" which we all are to varing degrees or "ignorant " such an opotunity is denied us.
Not zure if you saw my post on Monday, but on Saturday i was involved in a meeting of the Whitechapel Society which discussed this very issue. The case for a connection was made by Ed Stow, who is just as convinced of Lechmere as is Christer.
And there was none of this hostility present.

Maybe it the very nature of message boards (isolation from the others in the debate) which leads to this outcome.



Steve
Quick reply to this message
  #4033  
Old 05-09-2018, 06:01 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,261
Default

Quote:
Never make yourself out as dumber than you are. If you are a bit dumb from the outset, that can be disastrous
Didnt you, very recently, threaten to report Harry for personal insults?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message
  #4034  
Old 05-09-2018, 06:37 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,811
Default

Fisherman,
You wrote,'No we do not have to resort to court terms,since no court case is possible.He's dead you see"What a strange statement to make,seeing as you rely heavily on a court term of murder(In the torso cases),expressed by a court. Why does Cross being dead cancel out the need for proof?
Talk about being dumb,you head the list.
Quick reply to this message
  #4035  
Old 05-11-2018, 09:36 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Didnt you, very recently, threaten to report Harry for personal insults?
I did not "threaten" him - I told him that I would report him if he continues his personal insults. I stand by that.

The sentence you quote above was a general phrasing, like "you should never throw stones in glass houses".

It does not fall under the same category, therefore.

Gareth led on that the taking of uteri, hearts and abdomonal walls was perhaps not odd or unusual at all, and so I spoke in general terms of how not to do try and make it look as if you are not aware of given matters.

As an aside, I never thought that Gareth was dumb. I wrote as much a few pages back, commenting on him and you as very able and knowledgeable posters. That stands.

...and it comes with raised expectations on my behalf.
Quick reply to this message
  #4036  
Old 05-11-2018, 09:38 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
No there are links which are significant (true) or insignificant(false)

It is for those proposing a link to prove their significance, something you have failed to do. You have not proven a single "link" is significant.

As for misleading, another example of the pot calling the kettle black.


Steve
Nobody has been able to come up with anything like these cases, in terms of similarities, and that is proof enough to tell us that they are two very rare series containing the same very rare details.

That is enough - or so it should be.
Quick reply to this message
  #4037  
Old 05-11-2018, 09:41 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Its ok for you to say there is so strong a certainty that those disageeing are bias or ignorant such implies it is a fact!
yet the opposing view is only a possability.
You trying to teach me, the degree of arrogance the implies is truly astonishing.

Steve
You are not expressing yourself very clearly, Steve. But if you are saying that it is wrong to say that the similarities point clearly to one killer whereas the dissimilarities do very little to dispell that notion, then you are mistaken.
It is the exact thing we can learn from the details - right (almost certainly) or wrong (only a freak possibility).
Quick reply to this message
  #4038  
Old 05-11-2018, 09:44 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
There you go again. If someone doesn't buy your interpretation it's because they are "dumb" and "playing the fool".
Well, not buying my "interpretation" in this case is suggesting that uteri removals, cutting out of hearts and the taking away of abdominal walls in sections is perhaps not uncommon at all.

What I am suggesting is that if we know quite well that these things ARE rare - and I think we may agree on it? - then why propose the opposite as a possibility?
Quick reply to this message
  #4039  
Old 05-11-2018, 09:45 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
It's a shame that these debates become so adversarial in nature, usually on account of posters airing old grievances. The possibility of a connection between the Ripper & Thames Torso series should be an interesting and thought-provoking discussion if you approach it with an open-mind. There's nothing in the rulebook that says that a serial killer can't deviate in their MO & signature, particularly when we have no idea of the circumstances they were operating under. I know it's self-evident but it bears repeating that since the perpetrator(s) of these crimes were never caught, none of us can make definitive statements on the killer's bio. As for Fish, I see him as doubling-down on his convictions to make a point against mass scepticism, that's all.

Look at it this way, multi-killer theorists have tried to separate the canonical five because of perceived discrepancies in skill-level and behaviour. The Ripper took the uterus from Chapman. He took the uterus AND a kidney from Eddowes. Why the kidney? He removed the uterus (along with everything else) from Mary Kelly, but only took the heart this time. This begs the question whether the uteri bore significance to the killer or not? What changed for him to leave it behind this time? Unless it wasn't the same killer behind the other Whitechapel victims, but what are the odds of that? I don't think we can take anything for granted and presume that the killer should have always done 'x' because of 'y'. In the case of the Ripper & Torsos, what we have are two series of gruesome murders with geographical overlap that betray a need to dehumanize and deconstruct their prey, be it via mutilation and/or dismemberment. That doesn't mean they were performed by the same hand, but it doesn't mean the possibility should be disregarded either.
WHAT? A thoughtful and good post? Out here? Really, Harry!
Quick reply to this message
  #4040  
Old 05-11-2018, 09:46 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
"As for Fish, I see him as doubling-down on his convictions to make a point against mass scepticism"

I think you'll find that Fisherman has always come out with all guns blazing, Harry - it's his style. (That's not a criticism, by the way.)
Fisherman is normally met by a barrage of insults and belittling posts, some of them saying that "Fisherman is twisting the facts and overgeneralizing! He CAN NOT be trusted, he misleads and lies!"

Not sure of this (and I donīt want to be pushy, of course!), but that MAY just have a little something to do with how I post...? Just a thought, mind you.

Last edited by Fisherman : 05-11-2018 at 09:50 AM.
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.