2 ?'s For Ripperologists

[perrymason]

Perhaps I am mistaken, because I wouldnt have believed that people could live with their head stuck up their a** either,... and apparently thats incorrect.

Bray and whinny all you like, doesnt change the evidence at all....and by evidence I mean the type that actually exists, not the various opinions or impressions of individuals posting. Debating the existence of the obvious has lost its lustre, so believe what you want, write what you want, offer opinions with nothing but imagination as a foundation.....I wont say another word.

The nice thing for you is, that you will always end up back in a safety zone,...that of one killer of 5 women without any evidence pointing to anyone, and of guesses and opinions that have never been proven in 120 years.

Stay the course, by all means, just because you espouse ideas that have never been workable is no reason to quit now.

In conclusion.....there is no proof that there was a "Ripper" that killed 5 women at all, there is no proof that this man killed Mary Kelly, and there is no proof that anything that found its way to a place in Marys room wasnt placed there deliberately.

But those are just the facts, dont let them stop ya. They havent yet.

Cheers.

[perrymason]

Upon reflection my remarks were overly harsh in response to points only made on this thread, in this particular conversation,... they were reflective of cumulative disappointments in the some of the recent arguments placed before the members. My apologies.

I will not address any further posts directed towards me on this thread though, I am through here.

Regards.

[The Enemy Blog]

Why's it gotta be MY thread somebody doesn't want to post on?

In truth, I've given some detailed thought to the fifth murder as of late. There are many things I don't particularly LIKE about the Mary Kelly killing, in that she is so different from the others.

If Jack the Ripper were a typical, modern serial killer, this would be a real monkey wrench in his profile. Kelly is nearly twenty years younger than the other victims. The event takes place at a completely different location than the others.

There are many strange peculiarities that just don't seem to fit.

However, I happen to believe that Kelly was, in fact, a Ripper victim. Personally, if I took a knife and tried doing what he did, I'd fail. I just don't have the anatomical knowledge. I doubt most people do. If I handed you a knife and said, here is a corpse, go get me a kidney, I would bet a thousand dollars that you couldn't. Because how the hell would you know what was what?

Something WAS very different about Mary Kelly, in order for her to BECOME a Ripper victim, but sadly, the reasons are lost to history.

[Cubitt]

Personally, if I took a knife and tried doing what he did, I'd fail. I just don't have the anatomical knowledge. I doubt most people do. If I handed you a knife and said, here is a corpse, go get me a kidney, I would bet a thousand dollars that you couldn't. Because how the hell would you know what was what?

Absolutely. And we're (presumably) now much better schooled in anatomical knowledge than your average Victorian Whitechapel resident. I guess we'd stand a much better chance of locating a kidney than a 19th Century east end layman.

Of course, maybe the killer wasn't specifically going for any bits in particular. He was just going in and pulling out items as he found them. As horrible as it is to contemplate, perhaps a womb or a kidney would be blindingly obvious and easy to remove, even to a layman. I literally have no idea.

(shudder).

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps I am mistaken, because I wouldnt have believed that people could live with their head stuck up their a** either,... and apparently thats incorrect.

True, Mike - the problem is that some people end up with their heads stuck up somebody else's arse instead; such as the arse that is "The Ripper definitely didn't kill Kelly".

[caz]

Morning All,

I advise anyone who hasn't already done so to look at the outdoor/indoor crimes of Robert Napper, if they don't see how one killer could have been responsible for the murders of both Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly.

One of the most illogical arguments made for a copycat ripper killing in Miller's Court, in my view, is that it depends on identifying differences and saying that they indicate a copycat (one of Mary's known associates typically cops the blame) who obviously did a pretty lousy job of copying. So lousy, apparently, that he got clean away with it and still can't be identified to this day.

What on earth is wrong with the ripper being led indoors on this occasion, by another unfortunate with no money for drink or rent, and inflicting as much damage as he could for as long as he felt it safe to remain in the location of the victim's choice? A copycat would have been in the business of making the crime scene appear as ripperish as possible, so he would have begun with a couple of distinct disadvantages by killing Mary, who was considerably younger than the recent murder victims, on a bed in her own room. The ripper himself had no such disadvantages. He didn't have to copy anyone, least of all himself.

I think theres a "pattern" there....superfluous actions, that is different from the previous kills attributed to the Ripper, my take anyway. But maybe its just because he could take more time indoors, if The Ripper.

There's a pattern throughout, if people can bear to see the ripper as a boring opportunist who lets one desperate woman after another take him to where he can inflict as much damage on them as the time and place and his damage catalogue allows. Mary need be no different at all from Kate, Annie or Polly in those respects. He did whatever he fancied doing when he got the chance. I see no way of separating Mary's murder from the others on the basis of the individual acts of bodily vandalism and plunder. There is too much scope here for a muddle of random and deliberate injuries and indignities in each case to claim that Mary's were all random (or all deliberate) and somehow not 'typical' or following the right 'pattern'.

God I just love pompous blanket statements that sound like they can't possibly be argued with.

Define superfluous. Now tell me how you think you can judge what is and is not superfluous in that crime scene when you weren't there, didn't see anything and don't know what happened.

I agree with Ally here. I never have a problem with Perry's posts when he simply airs alternative views. But he can expect a strong reaction whenever he comes out with pompous statements like the time he claimed it was a 'fantasy' that Mary may have been murdered by a stranger in the course of trying to make some rent or drink money out of him.

If the record doesn't show categorically that she ever took strange men back to her room (because Blotchy could have been a close friend), then we are apparently fantasising if we suggest that the fast approaching winter, Joe B's recent departure and her growing rent arrears - not to mention a killer on the loose who attacks working women out on the streets - may well have altered her own working pattern and thus dictated her fate.

Stay the course, by all means, just because you espouse ideas that have never been workable is no reason to quit now.

You see, this is another pompous blanket statement. Perry can't see how certain ideas were ever 'workable' if they failed to lead to a case solution. He concludes that they have never been workable and therefore need to be replaced with better ideas that he thinks could finally come up trumps. So he puts his own ideas on the table, which is all fine and good, but he gets cross with anyone who finds them infinitely less 'workable' than many of those he rejects. One very early idea he does espouse is the organ-harvesting for profit theory, which in my humble opinion is about as unworkable as ideas get.

If Perry changes his mind and returns to this thread, I'd be interested to learn which idea grabbed him first - the organ-harvester, or Mary (with so many of her own organs lying around for the taking) being killed by someone else.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

Enemy,

But you are supposing that his goal was indeed a kidney, or was indeed, a uterus. The fact that he took different organs each time suggests to me that he did not have a specific organ in mind, he cut stuff in the general area, reached in and grabbed what was on hand. Being that it was a woman and he was doing abdominal mutilations, he had a fair likelihood of getting the uterus and after he'd done the wholesale removal on Catherine Eddowes, there would be the kidneys.

If he was just grabbing what was there, when he had to go, as in "mutilate, mutilate, time to go, grab" then there is no particular anatomical skill required. And indeed, if he were going specifically after a kidney, why go through the whole of her abdomen if he had any skill, why not roll on her front and go in through the side and back? Only a small part of the kidney is protected by bone, it would have been far easier to retrieve the kidney from the back of her than going through all that inbetween stuff in the front.

[The Enemy Blog]

Hi Ally:
Those are great observations, ones which clearly I am not qualified to answer. Of course, that's never stopped me from trying, thus:
I don't think Jack was diving in, just grabbing whatever he could. You ever see one of those treasure chests at restaurants filled with cheap toys? When kids leave, they all run toward it, rip it open, dig through it very quickly before Mom says "Let's go." They grab whatever they can, and split.
In each murder (Except for the Stride murder, where he was interrupted by the barks of a pure-bred Yorkshire terrier named "Clarence." FACT.) (All right, I completely made that last part up.) he was opening or attempting to open the abdomen, seeking trophies. He wanted those uteruses. The only question is why?
As the crimes progress, the things he takes progresses. If it were random, let's see what organ I get this time type-of behavior, he'd be taking different things from different bodies.
Jackie was nothing, if not specific.

PS: I just re-read your post and saw you mentioned him taking different organs. I have to disagree. He took the same organs from the last three (not counting Stride. "Yap yap!") and added to his... grocery list?

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Bloody Mary

It seems to me that jack took what he was interested in taking from his victims, no time to play around, while on the street.

While he was hacking up Mary, it seems to me that he was interested in the heart because that was the only part that was missing; the question is why did he hack her up?

If it was not a ritual to arrange the parts as he did, then why would he be standing over the body for who knows how long with his back hunched over cutting and arranging the body parts on the table and under her head etc.

Did they find any organs on the floor? If he were on his knees doing this how could he do this without experiencing pain himself?

Just a guess, but a short man versus a tall man, being closer to the body doing what he did to Mary would be less strain on his back, hunched over all that time, positioning the body so he could access the parts he wanted to cut up. This man would not want to inconvenience himself by making it hard to work on her.

BW

[Ally]

Enemy,

He only took away the uterus from two of his victims: Chapman and Eddowes.

So that is only 2 out of 5, and as I said if you are mutilating a woman in the lower abdomen, it's a likely grab. When he had more time to take whatever he wanted (Kelly), he did NOT take the uterus, or the kidney so I don't think either were particular goals.

[perrymason]

Just so you may see how baseless the arguments are...the last post says he took organs "from 2 of 5 victims"...

Since no-one on gods green earth knows how many women this killer may have actually killed, it might be that he took abdominal organs from 2 of his 3 victims, leaving one victim with a matching mutilation that enables him to take abdominal organs in the first place,...or from 2 of his 14 victims.

Eliminating a goal that suggests abdominal organs requires some counter evidence,, doesnt it? Contrary data is not available by just citing another murder where abdominal organs were'nt taken, since you cannot prove that the killer who did take abdominal organs killed the person that had none taken.

All you have is 5 individual murder cases, some perhaps linked by evidence available, some linked by contemporary or modern conjecture only.

So if you want to assume a "spree", and the various damages done to each woman as something that could be used to exclude other options, (ie...that they could only have been done by the killer known as "Jack", or that because he did this to victim 1 and this to victim 5, that shows us his diversity and adaptation, so we must accept radical departures in MO) ...then I would think there should be some evidence to support the fact that one man in fact killed all the "spree" victims. Foundation evidence, and opinion or suppositions, are not equal.

Since there is no such foundation to use to spring forth that flight of fancy...and there is hard evidence that 3 of 5 women supposed/considered linked by one killer had their abdomens as the focal point of the mutilation, 2 of that 3 having abdominal organs taken, perhaps Im not the one with delusions of grandeur with my posts.

Suggesting that I disagree with using that kind of supposition...unsubstantiated and without any evidence..based on my ego has given me a great laugh...so thanks for that.

Regards.

[Ally]

Boy you really are so hysterical on this subject you can't even stick to your own word about not returning to the thread due to your inability to have a rational conversation about it.

Small suggestion: if you say you are bowing out due to your own hysterical overreactions, really it is better to FOLLOW your own statements. Otherwise you look flighty and unreliable. Or are you trying to play it both ways saying you won't address anything directed to you, but you reserve the right to come in with guttersniping attacks from the flank. Honorable. Really.

Second, I said he took UTERI from two of the victims. Not organs, if you are going to rant hysterically about what someone has said, do take the time to quote them accurately. And I was responding to the established framework that Enemy had brought up of the five canonicals and preceding from his supposition.

I happen to not think Stride was a Ripper victim, but if I am discussing it with someone who does, I need to work within the framework of their beliefs in order to have a discussion, and not like some who really do cap it in arrogance, believe that everyone in the world is required to bow to my suppositions, my opinions and my theories, which in my own fevered imagination have become absolutely fact and don't allow for discussion as if they were anything other than fact.

In other words Perry, I accept that my opinions are merely that, opinions. You should try it sometime.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Did Jack really do it?

So who killed Mary?

Why do people believe Jack did it? What evidence is there that support that?
A mutilation and a missing heart is that all there is to go on?

All Jack's killings were outside.

What evidence suggest that Jack killed Mary?

BW

[perrymason]

Boy you really are so hysterical on this subject you can't even stick to your own word about not returning to the thread due to your inability to have a rational conversation about it.

Small suggestion: if you say you are bowing out due to your own hysterical overreactions, really it is better to FOLLOW your own statements. Otherwise you look flighty and unreliable. Or are you trying to play it both ways saying you won't address anything directed to you, but you reserve the right to come in with guttersniping attacks from the flank. Honorable. Really.

Ally, I like you because you can be just as irreverent and as much of a smart a** as I am, so please halt the sanctimonious stuff....I noticed that people had no issue continuing to slag me after I said I was moving on from posting here,... if you think the "Honorable thing" is to do that, or to put yourself as someone above all that, I would differ in opinion.

Frankly I could care less about damaging any reputation as a serious student here,.. its clearly evident by my continued interest and contributions, and I have no desire to join the "accepted" data gang. Its that group that tells me Jack killed 5 women....unproven or substantiated by facts or evidence, that Jack killed Mary Kelly, unproven or unsubstantiated by facts or evidence, and that he didnt target specific regions of a womans body for his mutilations, defying known evidence, and unproven or unsubstantiated by any known data.

I cannot be the only one that knows there has been no "Jack the Ripper" that has ever been proven to exist or kill in multiples....but I seem to be one of few that asserts it.

I countered slags, sorry that offends you.

But you know full well that youve posted far worse comments about people yourself on these threads.

Regards

[Mascara & Paranoia]

So who killed Mary?

Why do people believe Jack did it? What evidence is there that support that?
A mutilation and a missing heart is that all there is to go on?

All Jack's killings were outside.

What evidence suggest that Jack killed Mary?

BW

I just can't realistically see Jack being content with ending things with Eddowes, who was quite clearly a botched job (the abdominal mutiliation, not the facial stuff) when comparing her to Chapman, who I think was Jack's finest work. Besides, who else would've been capable to do the amount of damage inflicted upon Kelly at that time other than Jack?

I don't like how everything about this case has to be a "conspiracy" (can't think of a more appropriate term) when you should be looking at things objectively. Like Tabram's believed to be a Ripper killing just because she was stabbed around the right time and was the same type of woman in regards to the C3 (Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes), but seriously thinking about her murder, it was likely committed by somebody other than Jack. And Kelly gets discarded from the group because she was younger, prettier and killed inside. So? It's still the same M.O. inside the room, the only thing different about it being the greater extent of the mutiliations (which Eddowes' murder even showed early signs of with regards to the facial deconstruction) and a different organ allegedly being extracted.

In short, I think Kelly's just as likely a Ripper victim as any of the C3 and very probably not the work of a copycat (wouldn't such a killer want to come forward claiming to be Jack the Ripper for the 'fame'?).

Just my thoughts. =]