“The first thing I would say is that we have to be very careful when taking expert opinion as the end of the matter.”
Not just expert opinion, Tecs; expect knowledge and insight into many more cases than we’re likely to know about. It’s fine on one level to reject all that, but who or what do we supplant it with – ourselves? Jack the Ripper was not a “spree killer”; he was a serial mutilating murderer of prostitutes, and therefore not particularly unique in the annuls of serial crime. We don’t know how long his “reign” lasted, but several critical factors that made such a “reign” possible for more modern offenders - such as transport to travel further afield and the means of disposing of the bodies - were probably not available to the Whitechapel murder. We also don’t know that Mary Kelly was the last “ripper” murder. There is no reason, in my opinion, to think he was any different from all the other known mutilating serial killers, who were sexually motivated.
“It doesn't need to be common. The Whitechapel murders were unique, opportunistic and motiveless.
The crimes of Burke and Hare were unique, opportunistic and motiveless.”
Burke and Hare “motiveless”??
Are you sure you’ve read up on that case, Jon?
Burke and Hare had the extremely clear, extremely well-known motive of murdering people and supplying their bodies to Edinburgh medical school in exchange for money. It’s difficult to get more motiveful than that.
A motive doesn’t have to be “something directly associated with the victim” to be clear and defined.
“I'm not defending the theory by any means, merely pointing out it cannot be so readily dismissed, the perpetrator was after all unbalanced.”
Well, dismissed as highly improbable, as opposed to impossible.
The problem I find with this area of study is that not enough consideration is accorded to precedent. If all, or nearly all, mutilating serial murderers have been sexually motivated, isn’t it the safest assumption that this mutilating serial murderer also belonged in that category?
One only has to contemplate the appalling injuries suffered by Mary Kelly to appreciate what nonsense the organs-for-money theory is.
As for the video of the Bray lamp, it is unlikely that a film would be radically different to the effect produced on the human eye, although should anyone doubt me I'm quite sure the nearest 500 candle power lamp won't prove too difficult to locate! It might be worth pointing out again that the lamp depicted in the film was considerably brighter than any affixed to a wall in 1888 Dorset Street, and was viewed/filmed from a a few feet away, as opposed to the 125 feet (thanks once again, Jon!) that separated Miller's Court entrance from the corner of Dorset Street.
Like I explained in bold, motive = love, hate, revenge or mugging. Neither the Whitechapel murders or Burke & Hare were the result of those motives.
I'm afraid I'm still not with you at all here, Jon.
You cite "mugging" as an example of a motive, but why do people mug? To obtain money - just so with Burke and Hare, who killed people and delivered their bodies to Dr. Knox in exchange for money. My point is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of serial killers are not motivated by financial gain, but rather personal (and usually sexual) gratification. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that Jack the Ripper probably belonged in this vast majority camp, as opposed to being a statistical anomaly.
Anyone can commit those kind of murders if under the erroneous impression that the organs have a monetary value and a market
It doesn't matter if the impression was erroneous or correct. If he was organ-harvesting in the hope - naive or otherwise - of trading them in for cash, how would that explain the extensive mutilations inflicted on Kelly's corpse which had nothing to do with the extraction of any organ?