Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > Motives and Reasons > 33. Other

33. Other Don't agree with any of the preceding 32? Got your own ideas? Tell us about them in here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 11th, 2009, 12:02 PM   #1
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,609
Default The Hunter Fallacy

Hi ho

In light of recent, and often farcical, attempts at plotting JtR and his motions I am starting this thread.

The general (at least on these websites) perception seems to be that JtR was some kind of hunter. By this I mean venturing out at night or whenever with the express intention of bagging himself a whore (hereafter referred to as "hunter").

Based on that, people then think they can do calculations and plotting and so on in some attempt at finding the most likely location from where this hunter ventured out. And from this sort of stuff we end up with the usual "local/non-local" "toff", "MO" "profiling" guff.

On some level it is reasonable to think he was a "hunter" given that his victims were virtually part of a flock and he seemed to select the weakest, those who were drunk, desperate or sick. In similar vein to any hunting type activity.

And then there is loads of bilking about indoors/outdoors, MO, etc etc.


Alternatively and perhaps more logically is that JtR was NOT a hunter and was, up unto a certain point, a fairly normal individual who was on the streets for reasons other than hunting. Such as drinking, shoppoing, going to work etc.

At some point the whores interacted with him and a chain of events was set in process resulting in their deaths.

This is supported to a greater extent than the hunting noyion by a number of facts:

1. The victims chose the location. What hunter allows the prey to decide?

2. The locations chosen were not optimal for hunting purposes. What sort of hunter decides to eat his prey in a spot where he himself may be eaten (caught)?

3. The victims were exactly the ones most likely to approach our fairly nonplussed killer. They were drunk or desperate (even for whores) and actively seeking custom. Exactly the sorts who would be approaching men on the street. Except Stride perhaps. Make of that what you will.

4. There is no rhyme or reason to the killings. One indoors, some outdoors, some secluded, some virtually on the street, etc. This is largely because he wasnt hunting, had no particular means of catching victims and didnt think at all about how he was going to kill someone or what he would do after.

5. Some women were completely hacked up, some werent. Largely because as a non hunter he had not chosen spots based on chances of discovery or how long he would have...the locations and times were solely dependant on chance, where the whores brought him and had no forethought whats so ever.

A lot indicates a non-hunting killer and very little indicates a preplanned hunting type of activity.

We hear a lot about "profiling" and so on but what strikes one most in the recollections of less famous serial killers is the complete happenstance of the killings. They did not set out to kill anyone and just a combination of circumstances led to the event happening.

Much like our chap.

When one gets over the misconception that our man was some kind of predator.....then one can begin to accept the logic that does not necessitate fallacies of the kind that he must have been a local with a hunting ground, or that he was from Whitechapel because thats where he confined himself, or that he had some kind of centrally located bolthole, or that he was looking for victims, or that Kelly was some kind of ultimate fantasy for him, or that the extent of mutilations indicate some kind of progression etc etc.

p
Mr. Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 01:22 PM   #2
SirRobertAnderson
Researcher / Senior Moderator
 
SirRobertAnderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Noo Yawk
Posts: 3,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Poster View Post

The general (at least on these websites) perception seems to be that JtR was some kind of hunter. By this I mean venturing out at night or whenever with the express intention of bagging himself a whore (hereafter referred to as "hunter")......

.........Alternatively and perhaps more logically is that JtR was NOT a hunter and was, up unto a certain point, a fairly normal individual who was on the streets for reasons other than hunting. Such as drinking, shoppoing, going to work etc.

At some point the whores interacted with him and a chain of events was set in process resulting in their deaths.....................

...........This is supported to a greater extent than the hunting noyion by a number of facts:

1. The victims chose the location. What hunter allows the prey to decide?.........If Jack was soliciting a whore, or vice versa, he had to let them pick their spot. Each whore knew where a 'safe' area was to be undisturbed for a few minutes. Refusal to go to their spot and insisting on his "place" would have been a non-starter IMHO, especially after the few two murders.

................When one gets over the misconception that our man was some kind of predator.....then one can begin to accept the logic that does not necessitate fallacies of the kind that he must have been a local with a hunting ground, or that he was from Whitechapel because thats where he confined himself, or that he had some kind of centrally located bolthole, or that he was looking for victims..... I think it is very hard to get around the need for a detailed knowledge of Whitechapel and that's why the local/bolthole concept keeps popping up. But that doesn't really contradict your point, does it? He could have been much along the lines you suggest but happen to be a local or have an office nearby.

p
I like the outside the box thinking, Lars. Good stuff. You sure you wouldn't rather discuss how Hutch outwitted Abberline ?

A few thoughts leap immediately to mind. Perhaps he frequented a lot of whores, but if one said "the bad word" or suggested "the bad act" he flipped out and morphed into Jack. Of course, the trigger word or act could have been quite innocuous. Here's another angle for you: perhaps he had a drug problem and only felt murderous when addled.

Perhaps he only killed when he felt no sense of arousal.

Lots of things to consider.

I do have a couple of rebuttals, though, which I've put alongside your text in boldface.
SirRobertAnderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 01:28 PM   #3
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,609
Default

Hi ho Sir BOb

Quote:
If Jack was soliciting a whore, or vice versa, he had to let them pick their spot. Each whore knew where a 'safe' area was to be undisturbed for a few minutes. Refusal to go to their spot and insisting on his "place" would have been a non-starter IMHO, especially after the few two murders.
I would agree.....but with enough money? Plus...how much more dangerous could it have been for Kelly for example, or Chapman to have gobe to e secluded spot a little deeper in in Whitechapel? Plus, a spot good for killing with plenty of escape opportunities must surely have been a good spot for a whore to escape from? In which case....why would they be scared?

Quote:
I think it is very hard to get around the need for a detailed knowledge of Whitechapel and that's why the local/bolthole concept keeps popping up. But that doesn't really contradict your point, does it? He could have been much along the lines you suggest but happen to be a local or have an office nearby.
I'm nothing if not reasonable Sir BOb....so I'll tell ya what: Can you give me ONE example of Jack displaying some kind of definite knowledge of Whitechapel greater than that of the main streets?

p
Mr. Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 01:47 PM   #4
Sam Flynn
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello, MrP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Poster
The victims chose the location.
I'm not so sure we know that was true in all cases. Who's to say that Jack didn't use the "there's a quiet spot I know... it's just through here" tactic on occasion - say, with Chapman or Eddowes? Who's to say that Jack didn't engage Polly Nichols in any sort of dialogue, but merely allowed her to walk past him as he walked the other way, before grabbing her from behind?
  Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 01:53 PM   #5
dougie
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Hello, MrPWho's to say that Jack didn't use the "there's a quiet spot I know" tactic on occasion?
Or "Do you come here often?"
Not sure the victims chose the location.....you could argue Jack chose the location and waited for someone to turn up I guess.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 02:01 PM   #6
Sam Flynn
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougie View Post
Or "Do you come here often?"
Not sure the victims chose the location.....you could argue Jack chose the location and waited for someone to turn up I guess.
As, indeed, many hunters do - in which sense they, too, choose the location to an extent.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 02:05 PM   #7
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,609
Default

Hi ho fellas

Its hard to imagine Jack choosing Chapmans spot? Its hardly an easy spot to get away from? Might be good for sex but gutting a woman virtually under a window and in a cage with one way out......its hardly handy.

As for Mitre Square.....I don't think Eddowes intended on sex there at all. I think thats where she accosted him about wherever and thats where she got hers.

Kelly....not much doubt there.

Nichols.....hard to know.

Stride......who knows.

Either way......there is no evidence of any kind of "hunting" behavior at all. No one mentions anyone "following" any of teh victims, none of teh victims were known to have been in a pub prior to their killing where they could have been hunted, etc etc.

However all the victims may plasuibly have simply bumped into our man who wasn't planning to kill anyone until the meeting happened or something set him off a little later.

We also know for certainty that all the victims, bar Stride possibly, were absolutely dead set on getting a client as they either said so or their bed/rent depended on it.

WE know they couldnt get clients without soliciting on the streets, we know they mostly ended up dead in places where prostitutes were known to take clients or quiet places suitable for sex but not murder, we know there was no evidence of the bodies being hidden or taken where they may not be found for hours as one might expect if the killer were in charge and so on.

If JtR was out to kill a woman and had planned to do so......he was hardly very good at it?

p
Mr. Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 02:07 PM   #8
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,609
Default

Hi Dougie

A number of things are problematical for Jacks having just waited until someone came along.

1. I cannot imagine there was much traffic through places such as where Chapman ended up.

2. Hanging around selecting a victim simply cannot have been a good plan after the first two?

p
Mr. Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 02:12 PM   #9
Sam Flynn
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Poster View Post
I'm nothing if not reasonable Sir BOb....so I'll tell ya what: Can you give me ONE example of Jack displaying some kind of definite knowledge of Whitechapel greater than that of the main streets?
Here's one: he didn't kill anywhere else. What difference would it have made for him to kill in deepest Ratcliff, or Poplar, or Bethnal Green, if all he had to do was follow the main streets? Or Camden, Greenwich, Lambeth, Southwark, Marylebone... (etc. etc.) for that matter? The question you should be asking is: why the main streets of Whitechapel specifically?

Sorry, MrP, I could see where that question was going so - like a good hunter - I decided to cut to the chase.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 02:18 PM   #10
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,609
Default

HI ho SamF

Quote:
Sorry, MrP, I could see where that question was going so - like a good hunter - I decided to cut to the chase.
Then your radar is misaligned as I was going for a carpet bombing of the Golden Calves of Ripperology.......

At any rate....I dealt with your argument on the other thread.

You are assuming he went to Whitechapel to kill.

I conclude he didnt. I conclude he was in Whitechapel for other reasons and those reasons led to situations where the fatal interaction occurred.

He may have also been in Lambeth et al at various points but when he was there, for whatever reason, teh confluence of factors did not come together and no killing occurred.


Now....if you'd be so kind....can we get back to attacking the foundations of the Hunter Ripper notion?

Not like you to take a thread off the rails SamF! Tsk tsk.....

p
Mr. Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Fallacy Of A Criminal Type Howard Brown The Forensics Forum 0 August 31st, 2013 01:03 PM
George Connick : Ripper Hunter Howard Brown People 0 May 23rd, 2013 08:54 PM
Harry Luffman, Ripper Hunter Howard Brown People 0 February 27th, 2013 05:53 PM
Ripper Hunter - Abberline and the Whitechapel Murders. Mike Covell Ripper Non-fiction 0 October 13th, 2012 05:02 PM
The Monster Hunter Howard Brown True Crime URL's 0 March 1st, 2011 08:48 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright @ Howard & Nina Brown 2015-2022