Historical Serial Killer: Jack The Ripper

Jas said:
Didn't Patricia Cornwell publish a book 'Case Closed' (or something similar), about Jack the Ripper? Although, given the quality of her other books, I can't see this one being any good. Has any one read it? If so, any comments?
Click to expand...

I watched the UK TV documentary by Cornwell, based on this book. Worst pile of melodramatised so-called 'investigative' bilge I have ever seen.

eta: Tumblety gets my vote. I was ferociously into this subject about 15 years ago, as a consequence of it being announced as the 'specialist subject' for the following week's round of the inter-pub quiz :) I have a whole stack of JtR books available at a knock-down price, though I imagine postage might be pricey from Greece.
 
Last edited:
let`s talk said:
Right. Other theories posted in this thread have the stronger evidence.:catfight:
Click to expand...

even the very worst of the other theories has better evidence than "royalty did it". Like for instance none of the other suspects being themselves royalty is better evidence
:rolleyes:
like the guy said, if you really think that a royal personage was responsible for the deaths of a few back street hookers when he was in scotland for some of them then you are ignoring the facts in favour of a preconceived belief. And like I have said so many times, where are the Uteri, huh, you got nothing
;)
 
Ian Osborne said:
Exactly. None of the proposed candidates are a perfect fit for the crime. Druitt is closest IMHO, but most experts think the Ripper was local to Whitechapel, but Druitt lived in Kent.

And the conspiracy theories, involving royalty, famous artists, the Freemasons and probably Aliens from the Planet X, can all be dismissed as frivolous.
Click to expand...

As I recall, Druitt was known - even recorded - as having been playing cricket way down in Dorset on the day of one of the murders. Bearing in mind this was 1888, nipping quickly back up the M3 would not have been an option. But don't quote me. Groan .. do I have to plough through those books again ? ;)
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
eta: Tumblety gets my vote. I was ferociously into this subject about 15 years ago, as a consequence of it being announced as the 'specialist subject' for the following week's round of the inter-pub quiz :) I have a whole stack of JtR books available at a knock-down price, though I imagine postage might be pricey from Greece.
Click to expand...

I asked this before, but none of the Tublety-as-Jack proponents have ever bothered to answer... maybe you might...

If Tublety was the Ripper, then where is the trail of bodies following his flight from London? Its very very rare for killlers to just stop, or change their method of murder. Why don't you see similar murders in France, and eventually Rochester (places that he lived in after the ripper murders.) Or do you think he's the one in a thousand case of someone who 'just changed'?

And if Tumblety was the ripper, why did he get so 'stupid' in the late 1880s? He was smart enough to avoid jail (despite being charged) in North America prior to the ripper murders. He was smart enough to know how to escape after the murders. Why then did he act so foolishly during the murders themselves? (Operating in public areas, where he could easily be discovered).
 
Segnosaur said:
If Tublety was the Ripper, then where is the trail of bodies following his flight from London? Its very very rare for killlers to just stop, or change their method of murder. Why don't you see similar murders in France, and eventually Rochester (places that he lived in after the ripper murders.) Or do you think he's the one in a thousand case of someone who 'just changed'?
Click to expand...

Actually, this part makes me curious. I mean, I can accept that a serial killer rarely stops once he starts, but it's kind of interesting in that it's suggested that there's plenty of time before he "starts". Is the killing truly so addicting that he cannot return to the period before doing the killing?

I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just a concept that's hard for my mind to wrap around.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
I asked this before, but none of the Tublety-as-Jack proponents have ever bothered to answer... maybe you might...

If Tublety was the Ripper, then where is the trail of bodies following his flight from London? Its very very rare for killlers to just stop, or change their method of murder. Why don't you see similar murders in France, and eventually Rochester (places that he lived in after the ripper murders.) Or do you think he's the one in a thousand case of someone who 'just changed'?

And if Tumblety was the ripper, why did he get so 'stupid' in the late 1880s? He was smart enough to avoid jail (despite being charged) in North America prior to the ripper murders. He was smart enough to know how to escape after the murders. Why then did he act so foolishly during the murders themselves? (Operating in public areas, where he could easily be discovered).
Click to expand...

I thought we covered this, Tumblety wasn't a disorganised serial killer, he was just an organised collector of Uteri, think about it for a minute and all your objections vanish
:D
:D
 
Segnosaur said:
I asked this before, but none of the Tublety-as-Jack proponents have ever bothered to answer... maybe you might...

If Tublety was the Ripper, then where is the trail of bodies following his flight from London? Its very very rare for killlers to just stop, or change their method of murder. Why don't you see similar murders in France, and eventually Rochester (places that he lived in after the ripper murders.) Or do you think he's the one in a thousand case of someone who 'just changed'?

And if Tumblety was the ripper, why did he get so 'stupid' in the late 1880s? He was smart enough to avoid jail (despite being charged) in North America prior to the ripper murders. He was smart enough to know how to escape after the murders. Why then did he act so foolishly during the murders themselves? (Operating in public areas, where he could easily be discovered).
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that 'my vote' would also carry about a 2% degree of confidence. I'm on the side of those who point out that trying to identify JtR is an interesting but ultimately futile exercise.

As for the substance of your questions though - can psychopaths be tipped into periods of deep insanity from which they recover sufficiently to give up their psychopathic activities? Were there specific circumstances around his visit to London that he didn't encounter elsewhere? Obviously I don't know, but it appears at least a plausible idea.
 
GlennB said:
I'm afraid that 'my vote' would also carry about a 2% degree of confidence. I'm on the side of those who point out that trying to identify JtR is an interesting but ultimately futile exercise.

As for the substance of your questions though - can psychopaths be tipped into periods of deep insanity from which they recover sufficiently to give up their psychopathic activities? Were there specific circumstances around his visit to London that he didn't encounter elsewhere? Obviously I don't know, but it appears at least a plausible idea.
Click to expand...
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath_2.htm
Psychopaths cannot be understood in terms of antisocial rearing or development. They are simply morally depraved individuals who represent the "monsters" in our society. They are unstoppable and untreatable predators whose violence is planned, purposeful and emotionless. The violence continues until it reaches a plateau at age 50 or so, then tapers off.
Click to expand...
Tumblety was early 50s when the murders were committed
:D
 
Marduk said:
even the very worst of the other theories has better evidence than "royalty did it". Like for instance none of the other suspects being themselves royalty is better evidence
:rolleyes:
like the guy said, if you really think that a royal personage was responsible for the deaths of a few back street hookers when he was in scotland for some of them then you are ignoring the facts in favour of a preconceived belief. And like I have said so many times, where are the Uteri, huh, you got nothing
;)
Click to expand...

I give up. You are too clever for me.:faint:
 
Well, never read much about the Ripper until I got Patricia Cornwell's book for my BD.
First let me address the question that may arise. Why would I get that, tis an odd gift.
Yes it is,I am a true crime buff though and everyone that knows me knows it so there.

Anyway, I was thoroughly unimpressed. She talks throughout the book as if it's a foregone conclusion from her deductive abilities Walter Sickert was the ripper.
Any coincidence at all she claims as evidence. Pretty lame actually.

I seriously doubt it will ever be solved. There's no evidence really to point to anyone from what I've read about it. In my view it was someone from that area where the murders were commited. After it was apparent the murders were by one individual any strangers would be looked at very carefully I'd think. Probably a drunk or addict just mad at the world and choosing easy victims.

As to the serial killers dont stop point, BTK stopped. As did the ONS apparently.
And the Wichita falls murderer whose name escapres me, I'll find it though.
It's a small percentage I think, but it does happen.
 
anyone interested should do a google on murders in wichita falls, there seems to me to be a large number of murderers and serial killers in that area that make Jack look like a rank amateur
;)
 
Drysdale said:
As to the serial killers dont stop point, BTK stopped. As did the ONS apparently.
And the Wichita falls murderer whose name escapres me, I'll find it though.
It's a small percentage I think, but it does happen.
Click to expand...

Yes, your right, it DOES happen. (You could probably add the Zodiac to the list of serial killers who managed to stop themselves.) But it is rare.

I do think that organized killers are more likely to stop themselves than disorganized killers though, and Jack the Ripper seems to fit the profile of a disorganized killer.
 
your insistence against all the evidence that Jack the Ripper is organised is not going to make it more true
Serial killers can generally be classified as either "organised" or "disorganised". The organised killers are usually highly intelligent, plan their crimes methodically, maintain a high degree of control over the crime scene and have a solid grasp of forensic science that enables them to cover their tracks. They also tend to closely follow media reports of their crimes. The disorganised killers are more likely to be below average intelligence, commit their crimes impulsively and they rarely bother to cover their tracks. While the organised killer is likely to be socially adequate (with family, friends and career), the disorganised killer tends to be socially inadequate (and often something of a loner).
Click to expand...
from this description Jack is far more organised than disorganised, I think you just want him to be a mindless thug because it means you can ignore the uteri

innit

:)
 
Drysdale said:
Anyway, I was thoroughly unimpressed. She talks throughout the book as if it's a foregone conclusion from her deductive abilities Walter Sickert was the ripper.
Any coincidence at all she claims as evidence. Pretty lame actually.
Click to expand...

Yeah the Cornwell book was pretty sad. It's a clear cut case of someone falling in love with their own theory and ignoring virtually everything else. She spent a lot of her own money trying to "prove" that Sickert was the killer. The final line in the book, "He is caught," was pretty arrogant (as was the title of the book itself). She made so many jumps of logic to get to he being the killer, it was dizzying, and sometimes almost funny.

E.g. She takes a single fact -- that Sickert had several surgeries as a child -- and then speculates that maybe the surgeries were on his penis. And if they were on his penis, perhaps he was horribly disfigured. And if he was horribly disfigured, perhaps he couldn't have normal sex. And if he couldn't have normal sex, perhaps he developed a severe hatred of women. And if he had a severe hatred of women, that would explain him being a serial killer. So literally she takes a single fact (he had several surgeries as a child) an concludes: SERIAL KILLER!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom