View Single Post
  #521  
Old 10-12-2017, 04:19 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Michael W Richards: Logic requires pattern and consistency, sequential occurrences. In these cases the behaviors can vary greatly, so its impractical to merely assume a routinely morphing murderer.

Merely assume? The assumption is not grabbed out of thin air, Michael. And there is not much morphing as far as I can tell. There is more of similarities.

I think the crux is what Sam struck on, disposal of remains. Something unseen in the Canonicals, save for some organs.

Why, Michael, would we expect the Ripper to cut up his victims and scuttle off for the Thames? The victims were killed in spots that were unconnected to the killer, in all probability, and so there was no need for dumping them elsewhere.

The display was part of the Ripper crimes, the shock value must have been something that was required or desired to complete the act.

No, it must not, actually. It may well be that what the Ripper did, he did for himself only. And then he left it behind, gruesome as it was. There is no need to accept that the killer MUST have wanted to shock society, although he may have wanted to do so. Equally, he may have discovered that effect after having killed Nichols and - foremost - Chapman.

If you look at the murder of Polly and Annie there seems to be little to suggest other than a random act of violence upon a stranger, with the ultimate objective being to mutilate the cooling remains.

No, when I look at them, I see a desire to fulfil a ritual, something that was interrupted in Bucks Row, but much more fulfilled in Hanbury Street. The violence had a very clear meaning, and it is no coincidence that the scenes turned out the way they did.
Thatīs what I see, so we need to differ on the point until further notice.

I think the taking of specific organs is a secondary goal.

I think it was just as important to him as was the rest of the cutting. I donīt regard it as secondary, nor as primary - but instead just as part of it all.

The Torsos were created out of sight and disposed of with some degree of stealth.

The stealth only involved not getting detected, though - it did not comprise making the parts disappear. On the contrary, they were aimed to be found, in my view.

Had no-one found any of the remains, excluding 1 torso perhaps, the killer likely would have been sated, and content to remain in the shadows.

I disagree. The killer would have carried on to kill, the way I see it.

Jack needed the audience.

Neither man needed the audience, but both men embraced and welcomed the attention they were getting. If there was not another man on earth, they would both have had the urge to kill anyway.

On the 1 torso perhaps placed, I feel its a political statement.

I assume we are talking about the Whitehall torso? I donīt rule out the possibility that there were political implications, but we will find that impossibe to convert to any evidenced truth. It may equally have been - and I favour that explanation - a comment directed to the police only, but with the hope of the overall society becoming informed of the delivery of the message.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote