Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Point To Ponder : Did He Pause Or Was He On The Constant Prowl ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Point To Ponder : Did He Pause Or Was He On The Constant Prowl ?

    Nina and I were watching the second season of Mindhunter ( on Netflix...about the early days of FBI profiling at Quantico)...and the segment on the greasy Son of Sam, David Berkowitz, came on.

    Berkowitz claimed to have gone back to crime scenes...and according to what the actor portraying him said....he rolled around in the dirt at those places he had committed murder and then masturbated at home, all the while denying that his crimes were sexually related. Right. The 'dog' thing was bullshit, too. A gimmick, a schtick, that Berky admitted to.

    Anyway....one thing he is claimed to have said in response to the question, "How often did you go out at night looking for victims ?".......Berkowitz said 'Every night'.

    I cannot remember the s.k.'s name, offhand, but I remember another serial murderer stating he went out every night like Berkowitz.....


    Did the Ripper go out every night ?

    Your views.
    To Join JTR Forums, Contact :
    Howard@jtrforums.com

  • #2
    There is no evidence either way, so it will be a matter of speculation. I doubt it. He doubtless had other things to attend to and could not devote 24/7 to prowling. If he did, I would imagine we would have more victims, since his frequency was already quite high for a serial killer.



    I have nothing to back that up, merely a guess on my part.

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree with what Alex said below.

      I don't think we can know if JtR went out every night. I don't think he went out to kill every night as apparently Berkowitz is claiming. My theory of the JtR crimes is that, with the likely exception of MJK, the victims set him off in some way. I am not blaming the victims but suggesting something they did pushed him into a rage which he acted out by killing.

      There is no evidence the killer had any kind of sex with any of his victims. So far as we know he didn't even ejaculate on the dead bodies.

      Did they reject him, 'I wouldn't go with you, you lunatic!'? Did they tell him he was repulsive? Were they, at the later hours of the early morning in three of the cases, not looking for clients? "Not tonight, some other night?" Or did they go with him and then he was unable to perform, blaming them?

      Or did at least the older ones remind him of someone he knew, someone with who he was having problems? Or did he only pounce on women who had scarves or handkerchiefs around their necks. Was this obvious handle an opportunity he could not resist? Did he have a certain sight pattern that roused him to kill?

      I also think it is possible he only killed after drinking at pubs until closing time or near closing for the Double Event. I just don't think he drank or excessively drank every night.

      But like Alex said, we really don't know. I think if he desired to be more prolific we would know more about him. One major frustration I have about the subject is, we don't seem to have any good leads that point to JtR accosting women except for the ones he killed and as the cliche goes, dead people tell no tales. SKs usually have a trail behind them of odd interactions with women because they don't kill every potential victim they see.
      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, there is a kind of pattern that all of the murders took place on a weekend / holiday night, and others have discussed in the past what that might mean for Jack's employment status, etc etc. So I don't think he went out every single night. Did he go out every weekend? Yes, probably. Certainly during that Autumn anyway. But I also tend to think that he was an opportunistic killer - he identified them when they were vulnerable (Stride having been attacked in Berner Street, Eddowes leaving the police station still under the influence, Chapman very ill, etc etc) and alone / unlikely to have somebody intervene, and went from there. For instance, it was almost daylight when Annie Chapman was killed - had he been roaming the street all night and hadn't found the right one, until he settled on Annie? It's quite possible. He was no raving lunatic who simply got lucky to not be caught red handed - he was very cunning as to how he went about it, and how he got away.

        Cheers,
        Adam.

        Comment


        • #5
          Taking the Canonical Five for the sake of argument, I find it inconceivable that the killer only went out on four occasions and got lucky every time; let alone twice in one night.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen"
          (F. Nietzsche)

          Comment


          • #6
            People thoerize that JtR may have had regular employment because the known murders happened around the weekend. That may be very true but there is an alternative theory mentioned here and there and I believe covered more in "The Butchers Row Suspect" by Scott Nelson.

            That is that JtR had access to buildings when no one was around. Suggestions are businesses, perhaps run by friends or relatives in daylight hours but closed at night.

            I once spent a lot of time trying to work out the murders based on Jewish holidays or Shabbat and couldn't make anything fit. I did this before I had the internet so it was a bit of work. Anyway, a point I will toss in here is, if the suspect was Jewish or a member of a Jewish family, it seems he would have had access to closed businesses when the rest of the family was observing their faith.

            Another thought I have considered is if JtR was a night watchman at some times and in some places.

            He must have looked for victims on more nights than when he struck but whether or not his hunting was frequent or infrequent, I have no idea.
            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

            Comment


            • #7
              Some SKs got hunting for victims like a regular hunter seeks game. Others seem to be kind of reactive, killing women with a certain look or something else that clicks the kill switch in the SK.

              Did JtR get turned on by women in the streets who wore scarves or handkerchiefs around their necks? It could be that the scarves were handy for subduing victims but did they mean something else to the Ripper?

              None of this exactly addresses the main Point to Ponder but it is possible JtR was on the streets many nights/mornings and never saw a woman he wanted to kill.

              One other thought more in keeping with the original Point is, unless someone just wandered the streets, going out of an evening cost money to drink in pubs, go to music halls, etc. Another pondering point is, did the Ripper wander and stalk or did he partake of normal activities such as drinking in pubs?

              I would say yes to the latter since the murders happened around or after closing time at the pubs. If the Ripper drank, perhaps drank up his courage, he had to have the money to spend in pubs, thus a job or other means of getting funds.

              One other thought is, we should be considering the lifestyle of the people in general. People obtained their food from chandlers' shops and street vendors. They did not cook or prepare many foods in their rented rooms. (We do have reports of people having milk and bread for breakfast, but short of sandwiches, etc. other foods would be bought elsewhere.) How did the Ripper obtain his meals? Maybe he was on the streets every night but not necessarily hunting victims every night.
              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi Anna,

                The other thing is that several times he was described by witnesses as being reasonably well dressed - certainly not a scruff, anyway, which perhaps lends itself further to the idea that he was a working man and may even have made a reasonably good living for himself. Long bow to draw, of course, but we can only work with what we have.

                I'm not sure I buy into the idea of him deliberately choosing weekends so that he would have access to buildings when they were quieter / empty, though - people were starting to move around in Spitalfields for the markets when Annie Chapman was killed, Liz Stride was killed right next to a club where there was a function happening, there was a person working in Mitre Square when Catherine Eddowes was killed, etc etc. There's holes in that argument for sure - back in those days, people worked very long and odd hours indeed. I genuinely do think the weekend thing was a combination of his employment, and also perhaps having more potential victims to choose from on weekends.

                Cheers,
                Adam.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well if he went out every night what would the chances be that he only got "successful" on the 31st, 8th, the 30th and then the 9th taking into account the C5?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi Sleuth,

                    But what's to say that was his objective each and every time he went out? I don't believe it's a coincidence that the murders took place on a weekend / holiday.

                    Cheers,
                    Adam.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Adam Went View Post
                      Hi Sleuth,

                      But what's to say that was his objective each and every time he went out? I don't believe it's a coincidence that the murders took place on a weekend / holiday.

                      Cheers,
                      Adam.

                      What are the chances that the killer was an itinerant traveler with his work?


                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Whatever the killer was, he apparently had a sight pattern for his hunting; middle aged, lone and drunken women on the streets generally after pub closing time. He varied his routine with MJK, IMO because the streets were too well watched. If that is correct he must nor have been a completely out of control mentally ill killer.

                        In mentioning a "sight pattern" I am using a biological term that can apply to wild game hunting. The predator, be it an eagle or a human, tends to look for certain patterns in the environment which identifies the prey. The predator reacts to these sight patterns.

                        Maybe the killer wanted to kill women on the nights he did but certain types of women led to the attacks. If he did not see the right pattern perhaps he did not attack.

                        I see no reason as Trevor suggested, that the killer could not have been a travelling person. Maybe he went to the East End for his days off, to drink, carouse and whatever else. Drovers and sailors have been considered before.

                        An interesting thought could be that MJK was said to have a sister who travelled about and sold things. Wouldn't it be interesting if an associate of this sister was able to introduce himself to Mary by claiming friendship with the sister? (I am thinking along the lines of child predators who have ruses like, "It's OK, I know your parents," etc.)
                        The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          What are the chances that the killer was an itinerant traveler with his work?


                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Hi Trevor,

                          Well it has to be considered a possibility, surely? A number of witness descriptions suggest that he may not have been from the poorest of the poor classes in the area, which in turn suggests that he was working regularly and / or was only able to be in the area at certain times. All assumptions of course, but I think we can make some educated guesses based on what we do know and what the probabilities are.

                          Cheers,
                          Adam.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Looking at David Berkowitz's murder/assault dates, if he did go out every night as he suggested, he most often came home empty-handed. He seemed to be a stalker as much as anything else and the thrill of the hunt may have been enough for him on most occasions. If the Whitechapel killer was a 'lust murderer' as is commonly believed, the same could also apply - the fantasy being prominent for them.
                            Best Wishes,
                            Cris Malone
                            ______________________________________________
                            "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi Cris,

                              Agreed. Surely that also shows a certain level of personal control? As in, he had the sense to know when he was in a position to be able to act out his desires, but also how to retreat when he wasn't. There's signs of that also in the botched murder of Stride. If he hadn't been that way, the chances of his being caught would've been significantly higher. Just goes to show that the classic vision of him being some kind of blood thirsty maniac is probably not accurate.

                              Cheers,
                              Adam.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X