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 19th, 2009, 09:00 AM   #21
Sam Flynn
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Poster View Post
The fact that such types of murders exists makes a mockery of the notion that our man was out "hunting"
I can't see that the existence of one framework, out of many possible frameworks, makes a "mockery" of anything, MrP. Does the existence of schizophrenic murderers make a mockery of the notion that one might kill for the fun of it? Does the mere existence of Buddhists make a mockery out of the notion of atheism?
  Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2009, 09:24 AM   #22
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,609
Default

Hi ho SamF

Quote:
I can't see that the existence of one framework, out of many possible frameworks, makes a "mockery" of anything, MrP.
It certainly does SamF when the evidence indicates one framework, calling it another makes a mockery of the original.

Calling a man an atheist when he's sitting on the pavement, bald, with orange robes and dousing himself with petrol makes a mockery of his being a Buddhist.

Two frameworks, the denotion of one, it contradiction of the evidence of the second makes a mockery of teh latter.

p
__________________
"Chance hasn't yet peached on Jack the Ripper.If she ever does, it will probably be cause for grotesque disappointment among the Ripperologists, who get as much joy from attacking one another's lunacies, as from any problems originally posed by the Whitechapel murderer" R. Gowers, The Independant, Saturday, 31 December 1994
Mr. Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2009, 09:45 AM   #23
Sam Flynn
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Poster View Post
It certainly does SamF when the evidence indicates one framework, calling it another makes a mockery of the original.
But the evidence does NOT indicate one framework - it's your interpretation of the evidence (or, rather, your finding a model that fits your interpretation) that's the issue. Yours is one possible interpretation, but it's by no means the only one, nor necessarily the most likely.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2009, 10:03 AM   #24
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,609
Default

Hi ho SamF

Perchance. Yet the following lets me sleep at night:

1. There exists a framework by which sudden explosions of over the top violence committed on strangers by apparently normal chaps can be explained and for which significant and documented literature exists. As opposed to this we have endless discussions about "sexual", "non-sexual" etc.

2. The parameters that describe such events are all conveniently present in the Ripper case: no evidence of sex, sudden rapid violence, sitautions whereby sexual ability could be called into question, dismemberment/insane violence, no evidence of ritualistic anything, strangers etc.

3. The only suggestion as to predisposition of men or women to such violence tends to come from their confiding in families. They tend to commit suicide. The trauma precipitating such disposition tends to be maternal based. He was in Whitechapel. He was outwardley normal. All which happen to fit one particular candidate (which pains me greatly).

4. There is evidence of casuality in the killing locations - ie. not chosen by the killer, a passive selection. A typical of planned or hunting behaviour.

5. An outwardly normal character with psychological "distance" from the crimes would be an unlikely suspect in 1888.

6. There is no suggestion in either timing or location of the killings having been planned.

7. No evidence in the locations of a pre knowledge of the deeper recesses of whitechapel.

8. There is no suggestion that the victims knew their killer.

And so on and on......

And to counter this, very little is ever put forward. A fact hidden by the endless ramblings of the masses about what Jack ate for breakfast and whether that could account for his lunacy.

I dont know what he ate for breakfast but discussing it smacks of desperation.

p
__________________
"Chance hasn't yet peached on Jack the Ripper.If she ever does, it will probably be cause for grotesque disappointment among the Ripperologists, who get as much joy from attacking one another's lunacies, as from any problems originally posed by the Whitechapel murderer" R. Gowers, The Independant, Saturday, 31 December 1994
Mr. Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2009, 10:11 AM   #25
Sam Flynn
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Poster View Post
4. There is evidence of casuality in the killing locations - ie. not chosen by the killer, a passive selection.
But that evidence also places him in the area where these women were to be found, MrP. If he was that touchy, why do we see no "catathymic outbursts" elsewhere?

Also, there's nothing "passive" in accompanying Annie Chapman into the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, nothing "passive" in staying with Catherine Eddowes until he got to the darkest corner of Mitre Square, and nothing "passive" in stepping over the threshold of 13 Miller's Court. This man seems to have been after something, at least for part of his time with these women. Their murders have "purpose" written all over them.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2009, 10:25 AM   #26
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,609
Default

hi ho SamF

because perhaps he wasnt frequently in any other areas at night where the whores were so aggressive or skanky.

plus he was dead (if we pursue the druitt theory or at least had a high probability of having topped himself) after kelly so why woul you expect killings anywhere else after that?

AS to you assertion about passivity. Its worth pointing out the illogicality of that.

A man meets a whore presumably at her initation. He can either lead her somewhere to have sex or follow her, the latter being passive. The act of following her is not proactive in teh conditiosn of teh encounter. Its passive. She takes the initiative. In the same way Kelly was the proactive actor...leading him to the room.

All of them were passive. If they had been proactive Kelly wouldnt have ended up in her room and all the rest would have ended up somewhere convenient for him, not for them. Unless you are wont to argue that all those killing spots were good for a killer. That they were easy to escape from. That they were not within earshot of main streets. That the bodies would have lain there for ages before being discovered. That no one would chance by during teh act. That no one would overhear from their doorstep. That there wasnt a bunch of Jews in a room over the killing spot. That it wasnt on a policemans regular beat.

DO you want to argue all that? Or deny it is true? Which would be difficult.

You genuienly think those spots were what a hunting killer would have picked with the stinking blackness of Whitechapel just 200 yards and a bit of non-passive persuasion away ?

If this was a hunting killer....could you possibly explain why not one killing of the five happpened in the deepest recesses of whitechapel?

Could you possibly expalin why the bodies were all found so quickly (not Kelly)?

Could you please expalin why virtually all the killings were overheard or come across while the corpses were still warm?

Could you explain at all why a "hunter", driven by "hunting" instincts only killed at the weekend? One wouldnt think that such a man would be prevented from "hunting" by the demands of his family or that a man who only "hunted" at the weekend for some reason then didnt bother his arse picking spots where the local bobby wasnt going to stumble over the still steaming corpse 3 minutes after the "hunter" left.

When we KNOW that hunting killers are not exactly keen on being nabbed and go to some lengths to conceal their crimes as long as possible.

p
__________________
"Chance hasn't yet peached on Jack the Ripper.If she ever does, it will probably be cause for grotesque disappointment among the Ripperologists, who get as much joy from attacking one another's lunacies, as from any problems originally posed by the Whitechapel murderer" R. Gowers, The Independant, Saturday, 31 December 1994
Mr. Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2009, 11:21 AM   #27
Sam Flynn
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Poster View Post
DO you want to argue all that? Or deny it is true? Which would be difficult.
No - it would be pointless, MrP. You have nailed your colours firmly to the "non-hunter" mast, and, whilst I acknowledge that as a possibility, I don't see as the evidence as making it as "probable" (or even "definite") as you appear to do. I wish you good luck in your proselytising efforts, but it's going to take more than mere spin, and the arbitrary trashing of legitimate arguments to the contrary, to convert me to this particular religion.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2009, 11:25 AM   #28
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,609
Default

Hi ho SamF

Quote:
arbitrary trashing of legitimate arguments to the contrary, to convert me to this particular religion.
That would be great.....but there hasnt been any arguments to the contrary.

In fact .... the entire case for "hunter" has been made by stating, presumambly with eyebrow raised and some kind of rhetorical fog hanging in the air:

"Hmmm.......but what would anyone be doing in Whitechapel?" (implying that only hunters and whores were there).

"Hmmm.....but why was no killed anywhere else ?"

"Hmmmm....but why were they killed at those specific times?"


And thats it! They aren't arguments! They are statements made in such a way as to try and load them with some ill defined and never elaborated significance.

And thats it. Its many things....but an argument it ain't.

p
__________________
"Chance hasn't yet peached on Jack the Ripper.If she ever does, it will probably be cause for grotesque disappointment among the Ripperologists, who get as much joy from attacking one another's lunacies, as from any problems originally posed by the Whitechapel murderer" R. Gowers, The Independant, Saturday, 31 December 1994
Mr. Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2009, 09:12 PM   #29
Caroline Brown
Author
 
Caroline Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,164
Default

Hi Mr P,

I have yet to read your 'hunter' thread, but have a couple of observations on this one if I may.

I am always terribly wary of anything that might depend on a captured killer's own version of events, such as a victim's alleged taunt about his manhood triggering an attack, and so on and so forth. I was reminded when reading this thread that Arthur Shawcross was a serial killer who claimed that over and over again he suddenly found himself in the throes of attacking another victim because she had come on to him and then tried to back off or threatened to have him accused of rape when he got aroused. In short it was all the women's fault and he would not have killed at all if they had left him alone. The thing that made me sick to my stomach was that this liar and fantasist was apparently believed by at least one psychiatrist when he claimed his own mother had anally raped him as a child with a broom handle. "In his dreams" would be my guess.

I agree that Jack appears to have passively followed his victims to a private or semi-private spot of their choosing, before launching his fatal attacks (although Liz may have paid the ultimate price for a refusal to budge from Dutfield's Yard, with its clubbers coming and going). But here's my point: he didn't launch any attacks, as far as we know, during the day or on any of the main thoroughfares where he was likely to have been approached by the likes of Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary. Nor did he suddenly take out his knife or go for a victim's throat halfway between a pick-up point and her intended destination, or in front of passers-by.

So presumably in your scenario the trigger had to be something that, fortunately for Jack, only ever happened once he had found himself safely alone with a victim. Was that coincidence, or the sign of a killer who is still in charge of what form the trigger will take, so he won't suddenly find himself 'going off' at the wrong time or place? And what did he think he was passively following each victim for, if he had no violent thoughts towards her until they were alone and she pushed all the wrong buttons? If his mind wasn't on murder, it was presumably on the same track as his victims - sex - unless he routinely followed strange women around for no apparent reason and they allowed him to do so for no apparent reason.

I take the point about the routine carrying of a knife, but would that typically involve keeping one sharp enough to carry out all the mutilations described on each occasion, ie very sharp indeed and no apparent lapses in his sharpening routine between one murder and the next?

Love,

Caz
X
Caroline Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2009, 03:06 AM
Mr. Poster
This message has been deleted by Mr. Poster.
Old April 20th, 2009, 03:11 AM   #30
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,609
Default

Hi ho Caz

Quote:
I am always terribly wary of anything that might depend on a captured killer's own version of events, such as a victim's alleged taunt about his manhood triggering an attack, and so on and so forth. I was reminded when reading this thread that Arthur Shawcross was a serial killer who claimed that over and over again he suddenly found himself in the throes of attacking another victim because she had come on to him and then tried to back off or threatened to have him accused of rape when he got aroused. In short it was all the women's fault and he would not have killed at all if they had left him alone. The thing that made me sick to my stomach was that this liar and fantasist was apparently believed by at least one psychiatrist when he claimed his own mother had anally raped him as a child with a broom handle. "In his dreams" would be my guess.
The problem is of course that no acute catathymic killer ever finds himself in the throes of anything as they are unaware of it at the time and have very poor recollection of it afterwards. So Arthurs plaintive pleas smack of self serving. Plus....unless I am mistaken.....it takes more than one psychiatrist to conduct an evaluation in such cases (legal).

Related is the fact that many killers who have conducted their actions "catathymically" suffer from quite serious mental problems and end up topping themselves in horror. Which, and I am as right wing as the next, hardly sounds like people trying to get away with something?
Quote:
I agree that Jack appears to have passively followed his victims to a private or semi-private spot of their choosing, before launching his fatal attacks (although Liz may have paid the ultimate price for a refusal to budge from Dutfield's Yard, with its clubbers coming and going). But here's my point: he didn't launch any attacks, as far as we know, during the day or on any of the main thoroughfares where he was likely to have been approached by the likes of Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary. Nor did he suddenly take out his knife or go for a victim's throat halfway between a pick-up point and her intended destination, or in front of passers-by.
Why would he? If you meet someone on the street, your range of interaction is limited. So unless "Hello, Good Morning" or "Oh Excuse me" triggered some deep seated mental problem.....why would he kill anyone during the day?

Also, presumably he was at work during the day where converasation about, for example, his sexual prowess was hardly normal.

Third, there are a myriad of situations between a whore and her man that could hardly be conducted on the main street unless you want to contend that perhaps he was willing to take his John Thomas out and test its performance there and then in the middle of Whitechapel main street or proceed from Whitechapel Main street to wherever with it hanging out.

Quote:
So presumably in your scenario the trigger had to be something that, fortunately for Jack, only ever happened once he had found himself safely alone with a victim. Was that coincidence, or the sign of a killer who is still in charge of what form the trigger will take, so he won't suddenly find himself 'going off' at the wrong time or place? .
Nope. It was probably the kind of trigger that could only be set off in the circumstances faciltated between a whore and her client in "private". Related to sex, payment, body parts, dirty talk, anything at all. NOne of which are likely to feature strongly in interactions conducted on the main street.

Quote:
And what did he think he was passively following each victim for, if he had no violent thoughts towards her until they were alone and she pushed all the wrong buttons? If his mind wasn't on murder, it was presumably on the same track as his victims - sex - unless he routinely followed strange women around for no apparent reason and they allowed him to do so for no apparent reason

Sex? Perhaps he was drunk? Having a schizoid episode? High? The fact remains...selection of the locations was passive on his part. He didnt try and direct them deep into Whitechapel, he didnt try and find some spot that was better than a one exit overlooked cage or somewhere slap in the middle of a bobbys beat. That would have been proactive. But he didnt do that. He followed the passive route and allowed the women to select the spot.


Quote:
I take the point about the routine carrying of a knife, but would that typically involve keeping one sharp enough to carry out all the mutilations described on each occasion, ie very sharp indeed and no apparent lapses in his sharpening routine between one murder and the next?

Why would anyone carry a knife, especially then, if it wasnt sharp? And we all agree that were many more reasons in the LVP to be carrying a knife than there are today.

If someone needs a knife for work or anything else....then why have a blunt one?

I never understand this point of "why had he a knife" and "why was it sharp".

Having a blunt knife is the same as having a shoe with no sole. It is not fit for purpose so why have it? Do you think the guy who sat outside his house listening to Chapman being killed had a blunt knife to cut his shoe leather?

Knives, expecially in the LVP, were probably kept sharp. Hence we have evidence of a completely different knife culture in the LVP than we do now. "Well ground down knives" and the like. Plus, even if he only used it to kill women...it only had to be sharpened once. If it was a half way decent knife and properly sharpened, cutting the soft tissue of whores is hardly likely to be dulling his blade rapidly now is it?

Plus....how could you or anyone else possible tell the difference from those cuts between a knife that was 100% sharp and lets say 75% sharp? Or even 50% sharp. Completely dull would I presume be easy to tell but 1)why would anyone have a completely dull knife, and 2) why would anyone assume that killing one woman would dull it. Plus if he was using it at work, perhaps he sharpened it regularly - every day perchance?

The only sharp knives I have ever used were scalpels....which were good for a week of cutting up dogfish which have seriously tough hides and standard work knives in a rubber factory which needed sharpening once a week.

Everyone has used a Stanley knife ("box cutters" for our American friends) and they don't exactly go blunt overnight or who would buy them? So why should anyone assume our man would need to constantly hone his knife to perfection or that even having a sharp knife was somehow strange.

My father carried a razor sharp six inch folding knife for most of his life, constantly, for cutting plug tobacco and scraping crap out of his pipe. Other than that he had no use for it. And that was hardly indicative of his being a psycho knife killer.

p
__________________
"Chance hasn't yet peached on Jack the Ripper.If she ever does, it will probably be cause for grotesque disappointment among the Ripperologists, who get as much joy from attacking one another's lunacies, as from any problems originally posed by the Whitechapel murderer" R. Gowers, The Independant, Saturday, 31 December 1994
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
When The Killer Left Berner Street Howard Brown Elizabeth Stride 9 November 28th, 2016 05:18 PM
Elizabeth Stride: Her Killer & Time of Death- DAVE YOST Howard Brown Elizabeth Stride 11 January 4th, 2010 12:24 PM
Manhunt for Chinese Serial Killer Mike Covell Other Serial Killers 0 January 6th, 2009 08:05 AM
Conversations with a serial killer Mike Covell Other Serial Killers 1 November 3rd, 2008 11:17 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:42 AM.


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