Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Iīd 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 Ripperīs 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

[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

[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]

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!

Iīm 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 Buckīs 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.

Thatīs 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 anybodyīs guess.

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 Buckīs 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: 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 thatīs 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 Buckīs 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, thatīs 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

[The Snapper]

Phew

I've read every post in this thread. One of the shorter ones devoted to Hutchinson but I suspect it still has legs. My own distilled views are as follows.

I don't see how Hutchinson getting his dates confused lets him off the hook. His statements based on description of Astrakhan man alone are enough to cast doubt. Also the idea that it was a show put on by Kelly and an accomplice is stretching things somewhat. Flashing expensive items in a poor area was not exactly a wise strategy unless you were looking to get mugged. What that leaves me with is a problem. Why was Hutchinson ever taken seriously at all ? I wonder if it was something the police played along with for reasons unknown. As for Hutchinsons motives for coming forward beyond those of short term gain I am puzzled. While it seemed to have the effect of clearing him of suspicion if indeed he was more implicated than he disclosed it was in itself a very desperate act. A bit like shooting yourself in the head to cure a bad headache. Mind you anyone who could misplace a pub would probably have missed anyway.
So in essence I'm still confused.

Snapper

[Wickerman]

I've read every post in this thread.
.
.
His statements based on description of Astrakhan man alone are enough to cast doubt.

The police didn't seem to have any doubts.
Which other opinions matter more than theirs?

Flashing expensive items in a poor area was not exactly a wise strategy unless you were looking to get mugged.

That's a bit of an urban myth.

Why was Hutchinson ever taken seriously at all ?

Do you think the reason might have been contained among all those files that have not survived?

As for Hutchinsons motives for coming forward beyond those of short term gain I am puzzled. While it seemed to have the effect of clearing him of suspicion if indeed he was more implicated than he disclosed it was in itself a very desperate act. A bit like shooting yourself in the head to cure a bad headache.

Correct, it makes no sense, especially in a day when it was far easier to simply disappear among the masses.

Mind you anyone who could misplace a pub would probably have missed anyway.

How did he misplace a pub?

[Ben]

You raise some good points there, Snapper.

If Hutchinson was responsible for the murder(s), the act of coming forward, while undoubtedly risky, served three purposes; to legitimise his loitering presence outside Miller's Court, to deflect suspicion in a bogus direction, and to satiate his bravado in pulling the wool over the eyes of the police from right under their noses.

Contrary to what Jon just wrote, the police did have their doubts about Hutchinson's credibility, which is why they attached a "very reduced importance" to his account - evidently suspecting him to be a publicity-seeker or money grabber, as opposed to a killer attempting to divert suspicion. What he described as an "urban myth" is anything but. It is incredibly unlikely that anyone would flash their expensive clothes and thick gold watch chains in Dorset Street and the surrounding streets at that time.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

But thatīs the whole point I am making - Rader was not the type that would evolve into a prostitute killer.

Maybe so. A lot of it has to do with the type of people the killers encounter in day-to-day life. It is no coincidence, for instance, that prostitute killers tend invariably to be prostitute users, and these include some who even had relationships with prostitutes. A far cry from a church-going suburban community in Wichita, I would have thought. The point being that the amount of "planning" that goes into victim selection will often depend on the killer's type of victim, which in turn will be dictated by the type of environment the killer lives in.

It is unlikely that the ripper was able to do much better in terms of disposal locations than the ones he selected. For all we know, he might always have preferred a tucked-away indoor venue, but suffered from a lack of venues on that regard.

The fact that he stayed uncaught will probably not be something he felt owed to luck at all.

Quite possibly, but it did owe partially to luck, whether he accepted it or not.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

A lot of it has to do with the type of people the killers encounter in day-to-day life. It is no coincidence, for instance, that prostitute killers tend invariably to be prostitute users, and these include some who even had relationships with prostitutes. A far cry from a church-going suburban community in Wichita, I would have thought. The point being that the amount of "planning" that goes into victim selection will often depend on the killer's type of victim, which in turn will be dictated by the type of environment the killer lives in.

Precisely, Ben, which is why Arthur Shawcross represents a much better example of the type of man the Whitechapel Murderer is likely to have been.

As for the outdoor crime scene venues, at least two of these were not anything like as dangerous for the killer as some appear to imagine. Few people were out and about at the times of the killings, and those that were gave the murderer plenty of advance warning of their approach courtesy of the heavy leather soles worn by the vast majority of East Enders, policemen included. Given the paucity of street lighting in the area it would have been a simple matter for the killer to have departed the body completely unseen under cover of darkness. Whoever he was, this man was not reckless. The fact that he escaped justice is a testament to such. The notion that he simply got lucky is sorely misplaced, I would suggest.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe: Precisely, Ben, which is why Arthur Shawcross represents a much better example of the type of man the Whitechapel Murderer is likely to have been.

Bingo, Garry - he is quite likely a much better choice for a comparison than Rader. Although there will be differences inbetween the Ripper and Shawcross too.

As for the outdoor crime scene venues, at least two of these were not anything like as dangerous for the killer as some appear to imagine.

The risks will have varied, but they were always there. The series was an extremely risky one no matter which other series we compare to.

Few people were out and about at the times of the killings, and those that were gave the murderer plenty of advance warning of their approach courtesy of the heavy leather soles worn by the vast majority of East Enders, policemen included.

Very true, and something that drastically reduces the number of potential killers.

Given the paucity of street lighting in the area it would have been a simple matter for the killer to have departed the body completely unseen under cover of darkness. Whoever he was, this man was not reckless. The fact that he escaped justice is a testament to such. The notion that he simply got lucky is sorely misplaced, I would suggest.

I think we are looking at a combination of skill and luck. And I think that we are also looking at a killer that was convinced that luck was something you could mould yourself. In that department, I do believe that the killer WAS reckless, but I donīt think he would admit it himself.

And in the end, he would be the one who ended up saying: There, I told you so.

The best,
Fisherman