Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > Suspects and Theories

Suspects and Theories To date, over one hundred have been proposed...many are considered...but only one [ or was it two? ] was Jack The Ripper.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Today, 07:50 AM   #71
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,134
Default

Quote:
He must have exercised some caution.
I can agree with that in principle. But the "some caution" is a bit vague.

Does it mean he didnt want to get his hands dirty?

Or he didnt want to risk a tear on his shirt?

He didnt want to risk losing his job?

Or he didnt want to get his neck stretched?

I have no doubt the some caution and consideration of it has a role to play in all actions...including murder.

But what "some caution" means for different people and him in particular..is something we can never know.

randomly ascribing the caution level that would mitigate a murderous action on the part of our man to be the risk of losing a job or being late has as much chance of being correct as any other.

Im not saying CL is our man (why do many round here feel they have to qualify every statement with that? Including me!) but saying that he isnt it because, amongst other things, he didnt want to lose his job seem to be gilding the lily unncessarily - especially as there is so much that goes against his candidature.

And I genuinely find it hard to believe that a guy who is willing to risk his neck or being horribly lynched by a crowd of outraged Whitechapel'ers is going to be deterred to any extent by the risk of unemployment.

The above of course only being valid at the time of a murder.....as what our man is or is not worried about at any other time is entirely irrelevant (which is why his being a working man with a family for 99.9999% of the time has actually little or nothing to say about anything)..

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 Today, 08:48 AM   #72
Caroline Morris
Author
 
Caroline Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,794
Default

Hi All,

Earlier today I posted the two messages below on the 'Lechmere - Nature of Evidence' thread over at casebook. I thought it might be of interest here too:

I have always thought Cross's 'tarpaulin' comment had an innocent ring of truth about it, but this was more instinctive than based on any evidence.

Oddly enough, only last night I began reading The Bus Stop Killer by Geoffrey Wansell, about serial killer Levi Bellfield. On page 5 the following passage hit me like a brick:

Shortly after 10.15, with the shadows now deep and dark, student Tristram Beasley-Suffolk [great name!] was walking across the Green, 'taking a breath of air from his studies', when he saw what he thought was some white plastic sheeting lying on the ground on the edge of the cricket square. But as he got closer he realized, to his horror, it was a person.

Now, people generally don't expect to see dead bodies lying around when they are out walking. The few who are unlucky enough to have that experience rarely have it more than once in their lifetime. Our brains tend to see what we might expect to see, particularly in the darkness, so a dead body is likely to be seen initially as some other motionless object - a shop dummy for example, if the body is left naked - until we get up close enough and our expectations are shot to pieces.

For me, Cross's 'tarpaulin' is now the strongest evidence for his innocence. How could he have known what an innocent person's brain was likely to make of a dead body, when coming across one unexpectedly for the first and probably only time in their life, unless that's exactly what he had just experienced for himself?

I'm sorry, but the man was innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

Bellfield's victim in the above example, Amelie Delagrange: ...was breathing, but only just: she had been hit viciously on the head with a heavy blunt instrument - not once but several times. Tristram did what he could to make her comfortable and ran across the Green to ask the local wine bar to call an ambulance.

Amelie was pronounced dead just after midnight the same night, after being rushed to the local hospital.

Had another student come along while Tristram was trying to make Amelie comfortable, and before he raised the alarm at that wine bar, we'd have had an eerily similar scenario to the one we study here.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen
Caroline Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 09:55 AM   #73
Michael Banks
Registered User
 
Michael Banks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caroline Morris View Post
Hi All,

Earlier today I posted the two messages below on the 'Lechmere - Nature of Evidence' thread over at casebook. I thought it might be of interest here too:

I have always thought Cross's 'tarpaulin' comment had an innocent ring of truth about it, but this was more instinctive than based on any evidence.

Oddly enough, only last night I began reading The Bus Stop Killer by Geoffrey Wansell, about serial killer Levi Bellfield. On page 5 the following passage hit me like a brick:

Shortly after 10.15, with the shadows now deep and dark, student Tristram Beasley-Suffolk [great name!] was walking across the Green, 'taking a breath of air from his studies', when he saw what he thought was some white plastic sheeting lying on the ground on the edge of the cricket square. But as he got closer he realized, to his horror, it was a person.

Now, people generally don't expect to see dead bodies lying around when they are out walking. The few who are unlucky enough to have that experience rarely have it more than once in their lifetime. Our brains tend to see what we might expect to see, particularly in the darkness, so a dead body is likely to be seen initially as some other motionless object - a shop dummy for example, if the body is left naked - until we get up close enough and our expectations are shot to pieces.

For me, Cross's 'tarpaulin' is now the strongest evidence for his innocence. How could he have known what an innocent person's brain was likely to make of a dead body, when coming across one unexpectedly for the first and probably only time in their life, unless that's exactly what he had just experienced for himself?

I'm sorry, but the man was innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

Bellfield's victim in the above example, Amelie Delagrange: ...was breathing, but only just: she had been hit viciously on the head with a heavy blunt instrument - not once but several times. Tristram did what he could to make her comfortable and ran across the Green to ask the local wine bar to call an ambulance.

Amelie was pronounced dead just after midnight the same night, after being rushed to the local hospital.

Had another student come along while Tristram was trying to make Amelie comfortable, and before he raised the alarm at that wine bar, we'd have had an eerily similar scenario to the one we study here.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz

I agreed with you as Herlock Sholmes and I agree with you as Michael Banks

Sometimes things just sound genuine. Like when CL was asked if he'd told Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row he said 'no, because I didn't see a policeman in Bucks Row.'

Regards
Michael
Michael Banks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 10:05 AM   #74
Michael Banks
Registered User
 
Michael Banks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Poster View Post
I can agree with that in principle. But the "some caution" is a bit vague.

Does it mean he didnt want to get his hands dirty?

Or he didnt want to risk a tear on his shirt?

He didnt want to risk losing his job?

Or he didnt want to get his neck stretched?

I have no doubt the some caution and consideration of it has a role to play in all actions...including murder.

But what "some caution" means for different people and him in particular..is something we can never know.

randomly ascribing the caution level that would mitigate a murderous action on the part of our man to be the risk of losing a job or being late has as much chance of being correct as any other.

Im not saying CL is our man (why do many round here feel they have to qualify every statement with that? Including me!) but saying that he isnt it because, amongst other things, he didnt want to lose his job seem to be gilding the lily unncessarily - especially as there is so much that goes against his candidature.

And I genuinely find it hard to believe that a guy who is willing to risk his neck or being horribly lynched by a crowd of outraged Whitechapel'ers is going to be deterred to any extent by the risk of unemployment.

The above of course only being valid at the time of a murder.....as what our man is or is not worried about at any other time is entirely irrelevant (which is why his being a working man with a family for 99.9999% of the time has actually little or nothing to say about anything)..

P
Hi

Id use the phrase caution to apply to a few things.

A killer would have been cautious not to have contact with others while he had blood on him (like when he got to work).

He'd have been cautious not to get caught next to the corpse of his latest victim.

He'd have been cautious about the location of his murders reducing the possibility of being seen.

He'd have been cautious to silence his victim first so that she couldn't scream out.

He'd have been cautious not to tell any obvious lies to the police if questioned (and obviously I discount 'did you do it.' 'No.')

I also really do think that he would have been concerned about his job. Even though he committed these horrible murders it doesn't mean that he didn't genuinely love his wife and kids and so would want to continue to provide for them. It would also be difficult to continue a career of murder if you spend most of your time in the workhouse.

Regards
Michael
Michael Banks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:19 PM   #75
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,134
Default

Quote:
it doesn't mean that he didn't genuinely love his wife and kids and so would want to continue to provide for them.
But at the point of killing... it wouldn't be the wife and kids and their welfare that was uppermost in his mind.

You could try and argue that but it doesn't wash.

At th epoint of killing.... he wouldn't be thinking about them. Otherwise he wouldn't kill would he? So the act of murder, fatal for wifeys welfare if hes caught, took predominance in his mind. Otherwise he wouldn't do it.

Its illogical to think otherwise. After or before he may be thinking of them. But once he was on the murder trajectory...he could not logically be thinking about them or considering the impact his crime could have or he just wouldn't have killed anyone.

LIke an alchoholic. Swears he wont drink, drinks, then swears to give up after he sobers up for the wife. But the consequences of his drinking, of which he is aware, do not stop him. Other wise he wouldn't be drinking.

But while he is drinking, the wife is not on his mind.

Same with the ripper.

So why would he be thinking about his job while he is killing?

It doesn't make sense. Nomatter how it is described or argued.

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 Today, 03:21 PM   #76
Michael Banks
Registered User
 
Michael Banks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Poster View Post
But at the point of killing... it wouldn't be the wife and kids and their welfare that was uppermost in his mind.

You could try and argue that but it doesn't wash.

At th epoint of killing.... he wouldn't be thinking about them. Otherwise he wouldn't kill would he? So the act of murder, fatal for wifeys welfare if hes caught, took predominance in his mind. Otherwise he wouldn't do it.

Its illogical to think otherwise. After or before he may be thinking of them. But once he was on the murder trajectory...he could not logically be thinking about them or considering the impact his crime could have or he just wouldn't have killed anyone.

LIke an alchoholic. Swears he wont drink, drinks, then swears to give up after he sobers up for the wife. But the consequences of his drinking, of which he is aware, do not stop him. Other wise he wouldn't be drinking.

But while he is drinking, the wife is not on his mind.

Same with the ripper.

So why would he be thinking about his job while he is killing?

It doesn't make sense. Nomatter how it is described or argued.

p
I don't believe that the ripper was such a drooling, out of control lunatic that he he wouldn't plan. If he felt the need to kill all he had to do was give himself reasonable time. Not attacking a woman 20 minutes before he was due to clock on would be a start! He wouldn't have his wife and kids on his mind while he was talking to his victim or killing her. He would have made a allowances beforehand. Just like he wouldn't have kept on a victim in the middle of the street. He didn't get caught. Just putting that down to luck is stretching it to say the least.
It's often stated that psychopaths lead normal, happy family lives. A mask of respectability. Also just because someone is a horrible murderer it doesn't mean that they can't genuinely love and want to provide for their family. It's hard to show a mask of respectability and normality from a bed in the workhouse!

Regards
Michael
Michael Banks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 03:36 PM   #77
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,134
Default

Thats where we differ Michael.

I dont believe he was a lunstic drooler. I dont believe he was hunting. Or stalking. Or planning. Or watching. Or waiting. Or targetting whores.

I think hw was out and about, doing his thing and whores interacted with him, brought him to where they chose and then he just killed them.

I could argue why I believe the above is so but Ive done that before.

The locations alone indicate he wasnt planning. They are dirty sex places. High risk. The bodies will be discovered quickly. They are not good murder locations.

All indicstions are that they interacted with him, they controlled the interaction, until the point he just decided to kill them.

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: 4 (3 members and 1 guests)
Anna Morris, Michael Banks, Sam Flynn
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 On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:26 PM.


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