• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Jack The Ripper (Compendium Thread)

What do you think is the most likely ?

  • The Ripper was a Freemason?

    Votes: 7 9.7%

  • The Ripper had medical knowledge?

    Votes: 10 13.9%

  • It was Maybrick?

    Votes: 4 5.6%

  • The Ripper was 'of the same class' as his victims?

    Votes: 9 12.5%

  • The Ripper was foreign?

    Votes: 2 2.8%

  • It was Druitt?

    Votes: 2 2.8%

  • None of the suspects yet put forward?

    Votes: 17 23.6%

  • It was a woman?

    Votes: 2 2.8%

  • Another?

    Votes: 19 26.4%
  • Total voters
    72
Just a passing thought as I read the latest FT article, but it mentioned that MacNaughten thought JTR was leading a plot to assassinate the Irish Secretary Balfour, and that a previous Irish secretary was murdered in Dublin using a Weiss amputation knife. It then goes on to say Ripper author Don Rumbelow was given a knife said to have been JTR's - a Weiss amputation knife. Helen mentions the Fenian link so.... had Tumblety ever visited Dublin? Probably putting 2 + 2 and getting 37.6 but it stirred a thought. ;)
 
Have to interject here.

FIrst of all, the term "Fenian" is as descriptive as the term "Paddy" or "Mick", in so far as it is a general racial slur and little more. To be honest at the time, there were several Irish groups in operation on English soil, two of whom at least were responsible for bombing attrocities. As such, to describe all these groups as "Fenians" is to muddy the waters.

Secondly, Tumbelty was not Irish, he was Irish American, big difference in so far as he could not have committed treasonous acts against the crown as he was not a subject of the crown.

Finally, Tumblety was arrested during the course of the murders for indecent acts and was in custody briefly. I had heard it mentioned before that he was in custody for one of the murders, however, evidence has also been presented that states that the charge was not a fellony offence and as such, a small fine or a small bail bond would have been sufficient to secure his release. Given that at the time he was a man of means, it is not difficult to imagine his release. Finally, procedure at the time was such that these kinds of offences were rarely cause for an overnight stay in the cells, hard pressed on space as they always were.

I think the terrorist links that Tumbelty may have had were primarily on the fund raising fronmt and the Special Branch were only interested in him for this reason. He was unequivocably not a member of an active Irish terrorist cell. Therefore, I feel he remains a valid suspect in the case.

Opinions?

LD
 
Here, here

I agree Lord Drakul: I think that nicely sums up his validity as a candidate.
 
Why would the police arrest Tumblety on the 7th November, rearrest him on 12, bail him on 15th, knowing he'd murdered Kelly in between? Makes no sense at all.

However you slice it, Tumblety bears no resemblance to any witness statements. He's far too conspicous. The only evidence against him is his mention as a possible suspect in a letter written in 1913 and he jumped bail on an indecency charge soon after Kelly's death. There is far more evidence to prove he is not the Ripper, if anything.

There were actually the Fenian Society of Irish-Americans, a splinter group known as the Invincibles, and the Dynamiters, or Dynamitards, all active around 1883 onwards. The Special (Irish) Branch was created in 1883 by Munro, and directed by Littlechild until 1893, and was created as a direct response to the terrorist activities.
 
Certainly you can point to the lack of direct evidence linking Tumblety to the murders, but the same is true of any candidate.

Such circumstantial evidence as there is provides reasonable grounds for suspicion:

- the 'American doctor' seeking uteri
- the 'American doctor' who fled Batty Street on 1 November
- the cheap brass rings in Tumblety's possessions at the time of his death, alongside a wealth of rexpensive jewelry
- his messy psychological profile, etc.

Have a look at the 15 reasons listed at casebook.org under Tumblety

P.S. Where does this info about his rearrest on the 12th come from? I thought he was bailed on the 7th to appear on the 14th?
 
Try Eddleston's Jack the Ripper Encyclopaedia. Or a closer reading of Evans and Gainey's book. Either way, the gaping holes in the argument are there.

There are far more convincing Ripper suspects. Tumblety ain't one of 'em. You can pick and chose whatever evidence you want to prove whoever you want. But the REAL Jack the Ripper is the one who fits it all. And circumstantial evidence is not enough.
 
I appreciate your point Helen, but I think that circumstantial evidence is always going to comprise a big part of the case against any suspect in a 114 year old murder case, particularly when there is no forensic evidence.

I'm not saying that I think Tumblety is JTR, only that he must be considered a viable suspect.
 
Hi Helen,
I agree, there are inconsistancies in the case against Tumblety and fully acknowledge that proof is lacking, but there are a few things that are trooted out about Tumblety that I find hard to swallow. For example, the famous moustache, this came from an early newspaper report in NY when he was at the height of his short lived fame. It is only a moustache and as such, could easily have ben removed at short notice. I think that the fact that he was a resourceful mountebank single him out as a possibility for lurking fairly unoticed in the Whitechapel without much difficulty. I think the police reports of his arrest are probably the best source, if available, of what he looked like during the murder period.

Lastly, the fact that he was an American citizen I beleive, prevented the police from doing more than they did, or indeed earlier, because their suspiscions had to be supported before they detained an American.

I think that Tumblety is a better suspect than most, with only Kosminski perhaps being much better, given what is known of modern profiling, they had the capability, it seems, if not the classic outline.

LD
 
You'll never turn me, dammit, never!

Nah, didn't mean to sound so snappy before. Rather difficult to say what you mean how you mean it.

Sorry Lord Drakkul, but Tumblety the Tache was in full bloom in 1888. I just can't believe that, if Tumblety was Jack, he wouldn't have been noticed. Being American wouldn't have saved him, hell it didn't stop him being arrested for buggery, so a spot of serial killing wouldn't have been ignored. Let's face it, it's pretty much open season on suspects, but some things shouldn't be ignored. They are, they always are, that's true. But if you ignore all the witness statements, giving fairly detailed descriptions of the last person seen with the deceased(s), then we should also ignore circumstantial evidence given after the event, ie. the Batty Street Lodger bit, the whole uteri bit. Tumblety had lots of body parts, only some of them uteri. Okay, he was a misogynist - so was Maybrick, Stephen and pretty much any other Victorian guy in the vicinity. And Andrews was sent to Montreal to escort two criminals, Roland Gideon and Israel Barnett. Then sent to New York on Ripper related business, which, let's face it could have been Tumblety, or it could have been eliminating from their enquiries a guy who skipped bail a few days after Kelly's death.

The other major problem I have with Tumblety (aside from the physical description, the lack of evidence, the failure to meet the psychological profile) is he seems to be either rich or poor, whichever is required to meet the evidence. If he was rich, he wouldn't have lodged in Batty Street, but at his more usual residence of the posh hotel in London wot name escapes me at minute, guv. If he was rich, he had enough money to move about and change clothing, even though the killer was described as shabbily genteel and Tumblety as ostentatious. If he was rich, the question of whether or not he had copper rings in his possession at his death (which I feel to be a particularly weak argument) could be of importance, as what would a rich man keep those for? Of course, there could be some perfectly innocent sentimental reason. If he was rich, why did he need a bondsman when he was bailed?

If he was poor, who cared about cheap copper rings? Again, there could be any number of explanations for it. And an awful lot of rings knocking about the world at the time that could cause the same consternation. If he was poor, he couldn't afford to change clothing around.

Tumblety was flamboyant and eccentric. If he'd pulled of the crime of the century, we would have heard about it. If the Diary of Jack the Ripper was alleged to have been written by Tumblety, it would make more sense. There is no evidence of violence in his background. Some contempories attest to his hatred of women, but that doesn't make him a killer, and indeed many others say he was incapable of the crimes. Even Littlechild admits in his letter that 'Although a 'Sycopathia [sic] Sexulais' subject he was not known as a sadist (which the murderer unquestionably way) but his feeling towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record.' Littlechild also says that he believed Tumblety had committed suicide shortly after his escape, even though the good Doc lived until 1903. Littlechild merely says that 'Dr T' was a suspect, which he may well have been, but it doesn't make him the Ripper, anymore than Pizer or Druitt.

Moving on to Kosminski - again, I'm not convinced, although that won't suprise you:) Kosminski, the raving nutter who drank from the gutter and raved in Yiddish, is not the kind of person who could talk a prossie into an alleyway then dispatch her so quickly she has no time to scream. Kosminski also had no violent history whatsoever.

Whoever the Ripper was, he was able to make these women feel able to trust him for a quickie down an alleyway, in spite of a killer being at large. He was someone comfortable talking to women, making them feel at ease. He was someone they thought would be easy money. He killed them quickly. There were no signs of a struggle, no time to scream. There were no signs of a sexual nature. He doesn't act like a typical serial killer, not even by today's standards. The whole reason for the gutting appears to be to display the handiwork. He works quickly, calmly and methodically. He doesn't need medical knowledge. They die very quickly, yet he does not appear interested in necrophilia. The rate of murder is phenomenal. The escalation in violence extreme.

And someone please tell me why 4 of the 5 canonical victims went by similar, if not identical names? I can't tell you how that bugs me. Whatever suspect comes up, I have to know what was so important about someone called Mary Kelly/Black Mary? There is not that much coincidence in the world. Before Kelly, the worst cut up victim was Eddowes, who, let's face it, was misidentified as Kelly, and had a hock ticket in her pocket in the name of Mary Kelly.

Believe me, if I'd have been Mary Kelly, you wouldn't have seen me for dust. So what made her take someone back to her room? Yeah, okay, the money. But surely we wouldn't think that alone would be enough? It must have been someone she thought safe to take home. And I'm not suggesting Barnett.

We are looking for someone shabbily genteel, unassuming, 'safe' looking, able to talk comfortably, with dubious interest in sex with women in the first place, who has a grudge against Mary Kelly, but doesn't appear to know what she looks like. About 5'2'' to 5'' at most, fair skin, small brown moustache, dark hair. While I am naturally dubious of witness descriptions, I cannot countenance dismissing them out of hand, and these are the points upon which they tend to agree. As to the 'foreign looking' bit, well, you can make of that what you will. Could be a euphemism for being Jewish, although I wouldn't have thought anyone at the time would have shied away from descibing someone as Jewish looking. Could mean it was someone not native to the East End, but looked more upmarket, hence 'shabbily genteel'. Could mean any number of things.

Oh dear, this is a very long post. I'd better shut up now....:eek!!!!:
 
Helen,

The Kelly thing bugs me too. Its why I *sort of* like James Kelly (see my earlier post) as the killer.

The fit is good, but only circumstantial; previous crime, violent outbursts toward women, knew how to wield edged tools, in East End at time, 'shabby genteel', skipped the country just after MJK, was going deaf so things were getting dangerous... and his past life fits modern SSK profiles. I'm not saying it was him, but I think its a better fit than the much sought, both contemporaneously and now, 'foreigner', esp when looking at the behaviour of Kosminsky and Cohen


8¬)
 
I agree. I don't think the Ripper was Kelly, but he is an interesting subject. I just don't think he would have stopped, just like that.

He was the right age range, he escaped in January 1888. But why give himself up in 1927? If he couldn't kill anymore, why not give himself up then? He is described as having dark hair and a heavy moustache, but I can't find anything else about his appearance at the moment. I'll have to have a look at The Secrety of Prisoner 1167 again.

Yeah, Kelly fits better than some, but we still have to make huge leaps at conclusions, rather than a neat little skip (which I'm prepared to make). We don't really know where he was staying at the time of the murders, and there does seem to be a lot of 'gap filling'. But hey, why not? Let's try Kelly on for size for a while. You don't know what else we'll find.
 
Hi Helen,

some damn good points there. I would have to agree in, though I am still enamoured of Tumblety, that he would have crowed of his achievement more given the man that he was. However, the eye witness statemnts of the time, given contextual evidence in other cases, was very poor indeed. If I remember a sort of sweep of the statements by Sugden in his book, the killer was anything between five and six feet, dark, red or fair haired, moustached, beared, clean shaven, well dressed, badly dressed and walking with a one limp, two bad legs or striding purposefully. So I think in general, the eye witness statements need to be taken with a grain of salt, though they cannot be discounted, bare in mind that there were very accurate eye witness accounts of Peter Sutcliffe and his lorry in the possession of the police for quite some time before he was even implicated due to it being buried among a wash of other useless testimony.

So to come again to my original point, and yes I did have one ;), I think the usual things about Tumblety that many people refer to that seem to rule him out are not all valid.

First of all his links to Irish Republican groups have never been established.

Secondly, his fortunes wavered during the period of the 1880s which he began as a very rich man and then his fortunes declined distinctly on his return to the States. He conslidated later and lived in the end in a shadow of his former glory.

Thirdly, his arrest for indecent acts was prompted by a raid, if memory serves. Therefore, juris prudence being what it was at the time, there was sufficient evidence for a charge being caught as it were in flagrante delicto. However, there being almost no proof to link anyone with the murders, the crown prosecution could hardly be seen to be throwing about accusations, particulalry at Americans when anti-crown feeling was running so high. So it would also make sense that were a man arrested for indecent acts, he may not have had his bank book on him, and required the services of a bonds man to pay the bail which he then reimbursed.

Finally, I am beginning to sound like a champion of Tumblety, when I am actually not really. My reasons in bringing these points is based more on the fact that the general reasons for dismissing dear Francis are often less than water tight.

But I would like to say Helen, you make a damn good arguement.

Cheers,

LD
 
Hello again people,

a couple of further points about the Tumblety question:

- how do we know that he had the tache of doom in 1888? I remember you writing, Helen, that the portrait in which he has the offending item was from 1889, but I don't see how we can derive from that the fact that he had the tache the year before. It doesn't take a year to grow a moustache, even a beast like that! Moreover, since this is not a photograph, can we be sure it isn't an exagerration, possibly at the request of T himself? He obviously felt it was to his credit to be depicted with such facial apparel: could he not have asked the artist to show him thus?

-I don't think there's a problem with T on the one hand staying in a plush hotel, and on the other having lodgings in Batty St, as alleged. He obviously sought out seedy sexual encounters on the mean streets of London: his downmarket pad could have been a base from which to operate for this sort of thing.

I was also interested in your points about the similarity of the victim's names, although I don't think there's anything necessarily fishy about this: Eddowes is just using her common law husband's surname when wants to give a false name, and I don't think there's anything odd about her calling herself Mary.

I still think there are far more important coincidences as regards Tumblety!!! (US doctor seeking uteri, US doctor in Batty St, rings in possession at time of death, hatred of women, skipping bail etc)
 
I think the point of the 'name' link, which could well be coincidence, is that both of the most viciously mutiliated canonical victims went be the alias/name Mary <Name> Kelly . Eddowes; Mary Ann Kelly, MJK is self evident.


8¬)
 
How many Kellys were there in Whitehall? If the name link was "Smith" it would be far less interesting.

And isn't Kelly a name of Irish descent?
 
Taken from a genealogy site :-

The name Kelly, a common Irish surname, originates from the Irish surname O'Ceallaigh. Though the meaning and derivation are uncertain, it might have its origins in the irish word 'ceallach', meaning strife. Kelly is the second most common name in Ireland. The great majority of Kellys do not use the prefix o, though its usage is slowly increasing. The most common Kelly origin is from the Ui Maine area, in what is now mid-Galway and south Roscommon.
Click to expand...

8¬)
 
Well, it's the odds, you see. Five victims, four going by similar or same name, yet out of all the witnessess (and there's a hell of a lot of 'em) we have 1 Kelly (John) and 7 Marys. And the list I just glanced had about 140 witnesses listed. So although Mary Kelly could just be a very common name, it's obviously not common enough.

Oh, and there were 2 Smiths, 2 Browns and the most 'popular' surname amongst witnesses was Richardson (3). No Kellys listed among the police either.

Okay, it's not a definitive example, but it does seem to show there is little more than coicidence at work.

And a sketch of Tumblety before he left for England shows The Tache. The 1889 portrait has it in all its glory. It would surely take more than 12 months to grow that monster. And to consider whether he shaved it off between times it just a leap I'm not prepared to take. For one thing, Tumblety wouldn't have been recognised as Tumblety without it. And there was never any suggestion that he was disguising who he was in England. And returning to America without The Beast would have garnered far more attention. I think it safe, therefore, to assume Tumblety had the tache in 1888. I don't consider it safe to assume otherwise.

And the witness statements do tend to jump around, but generally the most reliable witnesses descibe someone between 5'5'' and 5'7'', with dark hair, fair complexion, small tache. The one eyed pedler with the wooden leg and Jack Russell can, I believe, be safely eliminated from our enquiries.:D
 
John Douglas, FBI Profiler, Says...

He names one David Cohen, whom he thinks was confused or conflated with Aaron Kosminsky by cops told to "keep an eye on the Jew". Oddly, he makes a rather good case for it having been either Cohen or Kosminsky, or someone like them, based on his profiling experience of 20 years.

Using his experience, and insight, he scoffs at the notion of a gentleman having committed the crimes. He points out that the Ripper was not the type to have normal interactions with people. It just doesn't happen that suave social types become deranged, disorganized killers of this sort.

Each behavior is rooted in the killer's past, and character, and with this insight Douglas is able to flense many suspects from the list of possibles. In fact, he whittles things down to two main ones whose names we know.

He argues that the Ripper murders were disorganized and show signs of steep decline in mental control. Further, he argues that such killers tend to work within their comfort zone. Here was a man unable to deal with women except on the most base of levels, yet able to blend into the background. Obviously he was a local.

Cohen, turns out, went stark raving mad and was taken to Broadmoor soon after Mary Kelly's murder, where he soon died of pneumonia. No wonder, too, as part of his dementia was a refusal to remain clothed. He died incoherent, by the way; no deathbed confessions here.

Douglas's interesting analysis of the Ripper murders can be found in the book The Cases That Haunt Us by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker. It's out in mass market paperback, stateside at least.
 
JD has also gone on record that Cohen was the best of a poor selection he was presented with on a centenary program hosted by Peter Ustinov, which, to my knowledge has never been screened in the UK. Cohen was the best fit, but he felt that his ethnic origin made him less certain. The version in the book is expanded slightly, but still sticks with the Cohen suspect since JTR really isn't in JD's core interests, but it is still a damn fine piece of work (IMHO)

8¬)
 
Hi Everyone!

Great thread! Just found the whole message board yesterday.

Frater wrote:
"Using his experience, and insight, he scoffs at the notion of a gentleman having committed the crimes. He points out that the Ripper was not the type to have normal interactions with people. It just doesn't happen that suave social types become deranged, disorganized killers of this sort. "

I have to disagree with JD on several points here. As previously noted by several here, "Jack" doesn't seem to be too "disorganized". Obviously he had all his tools handy, and was "organized" enough to blend in, lure the woman, and then disappear rather rapidly. Not your typical "nutter".

Secondly, "suave social types" - Bundy was one of them and look at what he did. I've read all of Douglas' work and have respect for the man, but in this instance I think he's way off the mark.

For years I've toyed with the "names" thingee. It does seem too coincidental, but, has anyone ever noticed that in weird happenings the names are very often the same? I think there is another whole force at play here. Methinks the "gatherers" often get confused by the names, same as they can't quite get the whole outfit, or the feet correct.

Just my 2 pennies.
 
Douglas Is Better Than I

Well, you reveal a misunderstanding of Douglas's terms when you cite Bundy as he was not even vaguely the type of killer the Ripper was. He was organized, learned from mistakes, got better, and was a sociopath able to pass himself off as normal.

Further, to say the Ripper was at all organized is to ignore the evidence, which became increasingly more violent, more grisley, and less explicable by ordinary anger or what have you.

However, Douglas is much better than I at making his case, so I'd recommend you to the book The Cases That Haunt Us for further buttressing.
 
Actually Bundy did some very gruesome things to his victims, and nearly decapitated several of them. He went the exact same way as the Ripper in the end when he killed the coeds in Florida. It was a totally violent, insane rampage. Just like Jack.

I would also assume the "Ripper" was a sociopath. I mean, what else could we call him? A blithering, insane (disorganized) creature wouldn't have carried his weapons with him. Therefore, he was organized. He knew exactly what type of woman he was hunting, the same as Bundy, and he knew where to find one, the same as Bundy. He also knew how to blend in the same as Bundy, and both had the luck of the devil with them. I can't imagine why anyone would think the ripper couldn't be socially acceptable, when he would almost HAVE to be in order to elude capture.

I don't believe anyone has given very serious consideration to the fact that the "Ripper" may have used some of the same ploys Bundy did, such as arm in a sling, to gain sympathy and look totally innocent.

Thanks for the heads up on Douglas' book, I don't believe I have read that one.
 
Special Terms

Organized and Disorganized are special terms for Douglas, not just the words as we understand them, and there are subcategories in each. In fact, sociopath is also a term he uses with special meanings. Remember that his terminology developed over time at the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, which he founded.

Bundy is categorized entirely differently, despite the superficial parallels cited, and carrying a weapon is not a sign of organized criminals, necessarily, either.

All I can say is that a reading of John Douglas's books, including Mindhunter, would be both enjoyable and pertinent to this discussion.
 
Nah, I can't agree with Douglas on this one. There's no getting away from the fact that he was good at his job, but for my money, Ressler is better.

Douglas only really said Cohen was the best of a bad bunch, IIRC. He does stick to his guns, though. But then, so did Paul Britton, and what a falling down was there. Profiling is a tool - it is not gospel.

Whoever Jack was, he took a murder kit with him; while there was terrible mutilation, he did it quickly and efficiently; no indications of sexual assault pre or post mortem; he talked them into an alleyway, despite their being on guard; he maintained his cool after the event and walked away without attracting attention, even under the noses of police on the night of the double murder; he displayed the bodies, they weren't left randomly skewiff. The only disorganised trait shown is the level of violence, which doesn't appear to be random but premeditated. He does not appear to be disorganised. Give Douglas my e-mail address, and I'll argue it with him personally. I have great respect for the man, but I think he is wrong. I don't believe there sufficient evidence to categorise the Ripper as disorganised. The level of planning was too great.

I will take the contemporary witness statements, with all their idiosyncracies, over the supposition of a twentieth century profiler of a nineteenth century crime, any day.

BTW, Mindhunter is okay. Journey into Darkness is a bit pretentious. Whoever Fights Monsters is much better.
 
Our Mores Don't Apply

I like Whoever Fights Monsters, too. Ressler learned from Douglas, and you're right, profiling is but a tool.

However, your run-down of the Ripper's traits -- and some good points are made -- includes many modern viewpoints. Your remark about him "talking them into an alley despite them being on guard" for instance, displays modern mores inappropriately applied. Truth is, they worked in alleys, and would probably have more or less dragged him into one, on guard or not, once they'd decided he might be worth a penny or two.

Murder kit is a nice phrase, but what else but a knife did he carry, or need?

While I'm not necessarily defending Douglas, I find his analysis cogent. Prior to this, I'd favored James Kelly, and for many of the same reasons Douglas favors Cohen.

Fact is, though, as even Douglas admitted, we do not have sufficient evidence to make a solid stab at unveiling the Ripper. So it's armchair detecting and endless discussion, unless and until evidence surfaces, which is unlikely.
 
The good thing about Cohen is, of course, that very little is known about him. What is known is, at age 23, he was arrested 6th December 1888, and his case was heard with that of a Madam and two of her stable, which suggests he was arrested at the same time as them. He was arrested 7th December by Constable Patrick as a lunatic found wandering the streets. He was taken from Court to the Workhouse and thence to the Asylum on 21st December. Died 1889 20th October. He was prone to violent outbursts.

And that about sum it up.

He sounds better than Kosminski; although there is a suggestion that he is the Kaminski mentioned by Andersen as a Ripper suspect, which could have led to the notion of Kosminski being the Ripper. But at 23, he is rather young, not that that alone should eliminate him. And, of course, no description of him exists. He doesn't appear to have been of fixed abode, I think the address given as his residence at his arrest was actually a Protestant's Boys Home.

I agree the prostitues worked down alleys. My point is that they wouldn't have taken someone down the alley if they didn't expect to be able to walk out of it afterwards.

Douglas and Ressler were pretty much contemporaries, Douglas being the last to retire. I don't recall Ressler learning from Douglas, more the other way around, as Ressler started the Criminal Personality Research Unit (or Centre, can't remember which), taking on Douglas as an associate after championing him as a young agent visiting Quantico. Still, seeing as they're pretty much chalk and cheese, I don't suppose one will ever admit to having been subordinate to the other, although it appears Ressler's participation does predate Douglas'. Still, who cares?
 
Robert Kepple's 'Signature Killers' is a pretty good introduction to the subject of profiling. Just MHO of course, and JK is a lot less self aggrandising than Ressler . I can also recommend Paul Britton's exorcism in print 'The Jigsaw Man'.

8¬)
 
Ego

Yes, both Ressler and Douglas have very strong egos, and it matters little who learned what from whom. I suspect they couldn't really sort it out anyway.

Interesting stuff, though.
 
David Canter's Criminal Shadows is definitely worth a look-see too.

Paul Britton, while being very readable, is also a bit of an arrogant geek at times. But the books are well worth reading, just skim over the 'I'm-so-great' bits.
 
For my money,
having read the Colin Wilson Co-op "A Study in the Psychology of Violence", in which the behavioural and violent crime units in Quanitco aredealt with in depth, I think the dear old Jack shows a mixture of traits and does not easily fit into either disorganised anti-social or organised and asocial.

As mentioned by many here, he carried a knife which tells us little really. He blended in to the scenery we are told too. However, given the context of the day, this could easily have been through the garb of a local type worker or a down at heel gentleman, or even a slumming toff, though the kind of street walker targetted was of the distinctly lower grade and so it makes the toff bit more difficult to reconcile.

Therefore I don't know if the classic disgruntled and anti-social style killer fits completely. The asocial organised killer could easily fit the Maybrick sort of character, leading the double life and having a wife at home.

To me there are a few things which don't add up for either.

First of all, if the killer was the disorganised anti-social, the signature throat slit seems incongruous. The more common manifestation is of a weapon of opportunity on a victim of opportunity. Therefore the distinct pattern of prostitutes, with one knife, making a strikingly similar MO seems to me to be more on the side of the organised asocial. The trophy taking would also fit this. Were the killer truly of this type, a few strangulations and blunt traumas may have been expected as the killer was roused to fury and killed with whatever was to hand instead of the trusty knife.


Finally, the idea of a local does not cast much light on the matter. What does it mean exactly. The fact that among many of the witnesses and suspects there are many and varied nationalities, would seem to indicate that one would require something very striking indeed to be noticed above the noise and hubub of the street. Take this with the fact that there were still laws against public indeceny and it makes a case for the killer to have been socially acceptable enough to entice a prostitue away from crowded streets to turn a trick without alerting her to the fact that he was going to attack. Another possibility of course is that he watched for another punter to do the luring and then pounced, but this too suggests a more organised attitude.

I have great respect for the profilers of Quantico, however, I beleive that their greatest successes came from times when the full social context was available to them, and I thik this is not so in the case of the Ripper. It is too long ago and too much has been lost of the age as well as the case.

LD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top