The mind of "Jack The Ripper"`

[corey123]

I have had this on my mind for a while, why do people so quickly push away certain murders like Strides and Kellys?? I will talk about that further into my rant. I am sorry for the repetitance(spelling) but you will see the difference in thsi post.

Ok to begin I want to be in the shoes of the ripper. I am a male, single, aged 35-40. I am white. I have a weekly job. I grew up with a passive or absent father and a disconnected mother, who didnt give me much attention. I became unnattached to society and became asocial. I have a distructive tendancy and I set small fires and tortured animals as I was a kid and discovered my love of dominance over life and of distructiveness. I have a strong hatred towards women, especially prostitutes. I have a small mental illness or psychological disorder and I veiw this to mentally cripple me. I am neat and a good worker. I am shy and have to drink before my kills, for the sake of making myself less nervous.

Jack the ripper killed five women whome he killed to fuel his hatred by de-feminanizing them and de-humanizing them. So we are back to the topic of Kelly and Stride. I will start with Stride.

Why do we so quickly dismiss her? Just because she wasnt killed with the exact same knife used in the other murders? Many documented killers have used various weapons, the zodiac killer for example used first a .22 caliber semi-auto pistol then a 9mm then a 10inch knife then back again to a 9mm. And what if Jack was interupted by Diemschutz and fled the scene? If he had I could speculate that the reason for the overkill with Eddowes was due to the fact that(which I havent seen this stated) but that he may have just been pissed that his kill didnt work out.

What if he didnt just kill for the kill itself but for the fact that he liked killing and like butchering these women to the point of(in Kellys case) of a unidentifiable corpse?? He liked the de-feminizing which is why he cut off the breast and took to uterus. He liked the dehumanizing which is why he went to such extreams in Eddowes and especially in Kellys case which was WAY overkill..

I wish to discuss not just Stride and Kelly, but how we can better picture the Man behind "Jack The Ripper"

Any thoughts?

yours truly

[lynn cates]

dissertation

Hello Corey. To see the problem, try here:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-fisherman.html

The best.
LC

[corey123]

speculating

OK I have made a possible senareo(spelling) with stride, ok so at 12:45 schwartz witnessed the assult of stride by BS as called in that disseration, and he fleds the scene. We can speculate for all reasons that schwartzs story is true and again speculating that BS left the yard. Then after he leaves(this is where your pouncer ripper plays in) the ripper Sneaks up behind her and swiftly cuts her throat and while waiting for her to bleed out Diemschutz interupts him and he flees.

This is purly speculative.

Another senerio, what iif we threw out Schwartzs story and replaced it with that of James Brown who sees her around the same time with a man down Fairclough street. And lets say the man he saw was the assalient and then walked into dutsfield yard and murdered her, and still got interupted by Deimschutz.

yours truly

[lynn cates]

yard

Hello Corey. The problem is that Liz is in the yard, 9 or 10 feet from where the assault took place. Worse still, she is LEAVING the yard.

Check out the Stride thread.

The best.
LC

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I think the main reasons for dismissing Stride is due to there being no mutilations and the amount of men she was seen with by various witnesses. The reasons I disregard her is because of the superficial (compared to the other canonical victims') throat wound and the venue in which she was murdered. That and all the 'evidence' (I use this term lightly due to only being able to go on Schwartz's statement, which is basically just his word and no proof of anything in the grand scheme of things) seems to point towards the broad-shouldered ruffian being her killer, who probably wasn't the Ripper, going by how he attacked Stride so openly.

Kelly, on the other hand, is probably disregarded as a Ripper victim because she was the only one to have been killed in doors and due to the sheer extent of her mutilations; it fits nicely with the theory of it being a crime of passion (well, in a clichéd novel) made to look like a Ripper killing. That and there's a fair amount of mystery surrounding the girl in question. But realistically, I think it's more probable (and plausible) that she was an actual Ripper victim; the throat wound was done in the exact same way as Nichols', Chapman's and Eddowes', and we know at that point that the killer had upped the ante with his mutilations and decided to indulge in dismantling his victim's face and taking (a) different organ(s) than just the uterus. So that on top of the fact that the killer had the time and privacy to do whatever he wanted makes it more likely than not that it was the Ripper who killed Kelly, rather than a supposed copycat capable of inflicting even worse damage than the 'actual' Ripper.

[corey123]

I agree with you about Kelly. But when we cross the stride issue I have to go against that.

I firmly beleve stride to be a victem of the ripper. The choice of knife in ky mind has no way to disregard the ripper and because of the change of his usual knife I belive it to be why the cut was superficial and differernt than the others.

Yours truly

[lynn cates]

minor objections

Hello Corey. The knife is a minor issue in the Stride case. "Jack" was not locked in to one instrument. If that were the only issue, there would be no problem.

The same for the lack of mutilation. Since her head was placed between 4 and 5 feet of the kitchen door when she was found, it could be that someone was coming out of the door and so her assailant cut quickly and ran.

Trust me, the fatal objections are much more serious than these trifling items.

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

I think the main reasons for dismissing Stride is due to there being no mutilations and the amount of men she was seen with by various witnesses. The reasons I disregard her is because of the superficial (compared to the other canonical victims') throat wound and the venue in which she was murdered. That and all the 'evidence' (I use this term lightly due to only being able to go on Schwartz's statement, which is basically just his word and no proof of anything in the grand scheme of things) seems to point towards the broad-shouldered ruffian being her killer, who probably wasn't the Ripper, going by how he attacked Stride so openly.

Kelly, on the other hand, is probably disregarded as a Ripper victim because she was the only one to have been killed in doors and due to the sheer extent of her mutilations; it fits nicely with the theory of it being a crime of passion (well, in a clichéd novel) made to look like a Ripper killing. That and there's a fair amount of mystery surrounding the girl in question. But realistically, I think it's more probable (and plausible) that she was an actual Ripper victim; the throat wound was done in the exact same way as Nichols', Chapman's and Eddowes', and we know at that point that the killer had upped the ante with his mutilations and decided to indulge in dismantling his victim's face and taking (a) different organ(s) than just the uterus. So that on top of the fact that the killer had the time and privacy to do whatever he wanted makes it more likely than not that it was the Ripper who killed Kelly, rather than a supposed copycat capable of inflicting even worse damage than the 'actual' Ripper.

Hi M & P,

In a different take on the situation, I think one reason that Stride and Kelly are discussed as possibly non-Ripper victims is due to the fact that they both severed relationships with men we know really nothing about just before they died. And in the case of Stride, she may be dating someone new when she dies, and in Kellys case, we know she was seeing 2 Joe's simultaneously, both men as lovers likely, and she had just booted one of them out.

Stride as a Ripper victim requires faith....faith that an interruption is the cause for the missing mutilations,....and Kellys murder as a Ripper crime requires that we believe in that room he lost his mind. Its what the investigators thought, its one reason that Druitt remains a "suspect", and its clear when comparing that murder to earlier ones, the killer in room 13 did things that Jack never did before and many of them could only have served his curiosity or desires....meaning, in that crime scene much of what was done to Mary had nothing to do with extracting and taking her heart.

Yet in the Hanbury backyard, since he would need a dead woman cut open to be able to extract the organ he takes, very little is done in the way of superfluous acts. He kills and cuts where he intends to take things from, and cuts the items free he wants to take.

He didnt peel any thighs, or score any faces, or place pieces of the women under their bodies...he killed Annie so he could extract her uterus post mortem. Then he left.

Best regards

[c.d.]

Hello Corey. The problem is that Liz is in the yard, 9 or 10 feet from where the assault took place. Worse still, she is LEAVING the yard.

Check out the Stride thread.

The best.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Why are we operating on the assumption that everything had to go smoothly and like clockwork every single time for Jack? Perhaps his only real opportunity with Liz came as she had her back turned leaving the yard. That could also explain Jack's failure to pursue things further. He was unnerved by things not going according to plan.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Lynn,

Why are we operating on the assumption that everything had to go smoothly and like clockwork every single time for Jack? Perhaps his only real opportunity with Liz came as she had her back turned leaving the yard. That could also explain Jack's failure to pursue things further. He was unnerved by things not going according to plan.

c.d.

If I may offer one answer, its because Jack the Ripper was not known for his desires to kill....he was known for his desires to cut into women he murdered.

What youre proposing is that Jack the Rippers goal was to kill, which isnt what the evidence suggests in any other Canonical victim with the exclusion of Stride. It suggests he killed so he could proceed to steps that were more probably the "drivers" for him more than the killing was.

Liz Stride was simply murdered, Polly and Annie were murdered so the killer could cut into them.

What is lacking here is any evidence that Liz Strides killer had any further intentions after causing her death....I dont think its reasonable to assume that 'Jack" would just kill Stride for no other reason than an approaching cart and horse...knowing full well he wouldnt be able to do anything more than that.

But her killer didnt seem to care about any approaching noises,....I wonder if that suggests uncontrolled emotions and rage or someone who intentionally just kills because thats all the time he had.

Jack the Ripper didnt show us that he ever intended to be caught or wanted to be caught, so suggesting he modifies his goals this one time and simply kills a woman with an approaching cart and horse isnt in keeping with what we can reasonably perceive as a man who is taking measures not be to caught at any time.

The approaching cart and horse must mean one thing to the killer....he will not be able to leave the yard via the gates unseen. Consider that for a moment....the person who kills Liz very probably heard the sounds of the cart and horse growing louder and closer, even if the cart never turned into the yard, at best he would have to wait until it passes by the gates to leave. Do killers stand and wait by people they have just killed? Or do they flee quickly? I think that point suggests that if Liz Strides killer killed her within 2 or 3 minutes to 1 and Diemshutz's cart arrival, he would have heard the approaching noise and had no choice but to wait and see if the cart passed by...or he would have to leave the yard into either the club, cottages, or the unused stables. That means to escape without detection he must exit the yard when Diemshutz goes inside....its the last minute that the yard that was stated at empty at 12:40 would remain empty.

That means for this to have been Jack, he would have perhaps a window of less than 1 minute to get out the gates unseen. Do we really want a solution that confines the killer to an escape at a specific moment?

I believe to assume its Jack and he kills her anyway portrays Jack in a light that is not substantiated in any other alleged murder.

Best regards

[perrymason]

Of course if Liz Strides murderer came from the Club itself, or the cottages, he wouldnt have to leave via the gates at all. In fact a knife dropped into a soapy sink in the kitchen would be a fine hiding place for the murder weapon.

Best regards

[jonwilson]

I think most tend to believe that serial killers come from one parent homes or broken homes and that they're anti-social or whatever. I don't believe this to be the case with every single serial killer that ever lived. Most of us probably think Jack was asocial or came from a broken home or whatever, there is no proof to base these claims on. We don't know who Jack was or how truly his life might have been. He may have been born with 2 parents and had a decent upbringing and still turned out to be a serial killer for whatever reasons.

[jonwilson]

Also, I also believe Jack didn't wanna get caught. If he wanted to get caught, he could have. He most likely loved that he frightened people and that his crimes gave him a lot of attention, but he didn't wanna get caught for whatever the reasons may be.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

A well reasoned argument. But if we assume that given a choice Jack would have preferred not being hanged it all goes for naught.

c.d.

[perrymason]

I think most tend to believe that serial killers come from one parent homes or broken homes and that they're anti-social or whatever. I don't believe this to be the case with every single serial killer that ever lived. Most of us probably think Jack was asocial or came from a broken home or whatever, there is no proof to base these claims on. We don't know who Jack was or how truly his life might have been. He may have been born with 2 parents and had a decent upbringing and still turned out to be a serial killer for whatever reasons.

In fact John, its possible that he was a thief and was killing for economic reasons. Either money for the organ he takes, money paid to him to kill, or for money or jewelery or items that we dont know about that were on the victims.

He rifled through Annie's inner pocket and took her rings, Kate has things from her pocket on the ground near her, and we have no idea if anything of value was taken from room 13.

Before I would assume serial killer, I would first assess what other possible motives could be at work here.

I think Jack killed the first 2 Canonicals, possibly for economic reasons, I think Liz was killed in a Domestic Violence episode, likely for rejecting or insulting her murderer....Kate is a tricky one to figure...., and Mary may have been killed by one of 2 ex-lovers or 1 ex-lover and his brother.

Best regards