Slaughterman Theory

[Philbee]

Hello Philbee

There is the counter argument of what would the desire be for a man whose day job is slaughtering. There is the curious letter allegedly from the killer dated 24 September 1888 being discussed on another thread in which the writer claimed to have been a "horse slauterer." Despite all the convoluted theories and the scrapping on these boards by various parties, could it be that was the answer all along, and the killer was hiding "in plain sight"?

Chris

Chris . Thanks for the link , Ill have to dig out my " letters from hell " . Not sure about desire or motivation.. possibly alchohol/drug fuelled psyschosis but application ... Im leaning towards Perrys analysis of someone who is behaving almost on autopilot and is numb from killing .

[Doug Irvine]

Hello Philbee

There is the counter argument of what would the desire be for a man whose day job is slaughtering. There is the curious letter allegedly from the killer dated 24 September 1888 being discussed on another thread in which the writer claimed to have been a "horse slauterer." Despite all the convoluted theories and the scrapping on these boards by various parties, could it be that was the answer all along, and the killer was hiding "in plain sight"?

Chris

Are you thinking of the theory put forward by William Beadle, that JtR was the ex-horse meat butcher William Henry Bury, the last person to be hanged in Dundee.

[Malcolm X]

Are you thinking of the theory put forward by William Beadle, that JtR was the ex-horse meat butcher William Henry Bury, the last person to be hanged in Dundee.

he's also looks a bit like Blotchy Face, give or take 50%

[jc007]

you dont know what was going on inside the lunatic's mind, especially in Millers court, he could've been in there for hours after carving up MARY, doing GOD knows what! ............. real sick ****, dont go there; keep your sanity, steer well clear of what went on in MILLERS COURT....or what the Ripper was thinking, we dont need to know, we're after evidence or more likely something that doesn't make sense.

he would've neen thinking of necrophilia, cannibalism; or very similar indeed, looking at the display of her body and the way he's carefully laid out the organs this is fairly obvious......it's a macarbre painting, it's also one of the sickest muders ever discovered...FACT, thank God the photos are poor and only in black and white. !

there is something seriously wrong with MILLERS COURT, but i have no idea what.

I think you have completely ignored what was being said in Perrys post, No of course no one knows what was going through Jacks mind but we can get some idea from looking at the evidence and the facts, as Perry said the fact that the kills were quick, very quick showed he got no pleasure out of it, also both the act of killing and of mutilating was done very quickly in minimal light that is also a fact, so this does lead one to think that he was not killing or mutilating out of pleasure, if he had of he was letting himself down greatly the risk he was putting himself in (getting caught and hung) wasn't really worth the amount of pleasure he would of gotten out of he killing and mutilation itself (very little if any at all due to the speed of the crimes) so, I am not sure where you are getting necrophilia from, there is absolutly no evidence of this whatsover, cannablism maybe again no proof. But what is almost certain was that the organs for whatever reason was the motive for the killing as if he wanted to enjoy the kill and take his time why not lure the women away from busy streets, rather than kill them on the spot, my only reasoning is he was after something else and he wanted to get in and out as quick as possible and not drag it out, and the most obvious thing he was after was the organs.

[Malcolm X]

I think you have completely ignored what was being said in Perrys post, No of course no one knows what was going through Jacks mind but we can get some idea from looking at the evidence and the facts, as Perry said the fact that the kills were quick, very quick showed he got no pleasure out of it, also both the act of killing and of mutilating was done very quickly in minimal light that is also a fact, so this does lead one to think that he was not killing or mutilating out of pleasure, if he had of he was letting himself down greatly the risk he was putting himself in (getting caught and hung) wasn't really worth the amount of pleasure he would of gotten out of he killing and mutilation itself (very little if any at all due to the speed of the crimes) so, I am not sure where you are getting necrophilia from, there is absolutly no evidence of this whatsover, cannablism maybe again no proof. But what is almost certain was that the organs for whatever reason was the motive for the killing as if he wanted to enjoy the kill and take his time why not lure the women away from busy streets, rather than kill them on the spot, my only reasoning is he was after something else and he wanted to get in and out as quick as possible and not drag it out, and the most obvious thing he was after was the organs.

you have no idea what he was after or what his motives were, you dont think he killed because he didn't enjoy it do you...all serial killers enjoy it, look at the face mutilations to Eddowes, this shows great emmotion as it does with Kelly too.......what type of emmotion we dont know, but definitely not as cold/indifferent as what Michael and you think... this emotion grew as he killed more.............you dont carve somebodies face up like that unless you're feeling hatred or some twisted thought going on in your head..this equates to enjoyment, because some people get enjoyment from feeling hatred.

what facts?.... i think it's you that's not seeing them, look at EDDOWES/ KELLYS facial mutilations, this is not a killer that feels nothing/ does not enjoy what he's doing........HE'S FEELING QUITE STRONG EMMOTIONS, he removes the organs and takes a few away? this is common with quite a few serial killers, it's their ``trophys``they're proud of their collections.

FACTS? Look closely at Kelly, he did not kill her for her heart only, or he would've targeted that area instantly ( obviously), he wiped out her sexuality/ her womanhood and her facial identity/ he went totally over the top....... this shows great emmotion AND YOU CAN BET HE ENJOYED IT. every bloody second of it, does this make sense to you..

as for Necrofilia tendencies, again yes could be..but i didn't say it definitely was, to do what he did shows that he has an interest in this sort of thing....GOOD GRIEF look at the state of her, i'm sorry if you disagree with me, i cant help that, but i see a monster that loves killing, especially the last two victims.... why do you think that he made such a mess of Kelly.........yes! because he didn't enjoy killing the first 3/4 victims as much as he wanted too, he thus killed indoors so he could take his time and enjoy every second of it...he dissected her like that because he ENJOYED IT and because he had the time to do it.

WHY DID HE COLLECT THE ORGANS ?....no idea, i have a theory but it's not strong enough yet to post online

[Malcolm X]

but i appologise if my first post was too harsh, i'm a bit like that sometimes

[Ben]

if he wanted to enjoy the kill and take his time why not lure the women away from busy streets, rather than kill them on the spot

Probably because he had nowhere private and safe to lure them to, Jc007.

[perrymason]

Hi again,

To clarify what jc was saying MalX,...and thanks jc... I am not presuming anything about why he killed, who he killed, what he wanted to take or any of that....cause your right, at this point we cannot know what he wanted to do, and what he "enjoyed" for the lack of a better word.

What we do know is what WAS done to each victim, what he DID take, and the probable overall time he used.

And based solely on that data, it would seem the actual murder itself...which in all Canonicals is done by slitting the throats, that is always his fatal wound.. 3 while on the ground, one on a bed, and one perhaps "while falling'...it appears that act was not intentionally drawn out, prolonged, or savored. For example, it appears most of the victims were unconscious or semi so when the throat cuts occurs....that means he does not look into the victims shocked eyes as they slowly die in front of him. Many killers have said that moment is the addictive one for them. This killer, not so apparently.

If you break down the time available from Lawendes sighting to Watkins entering the square to find Kate lying there, you have a total time possible for everything to be done of 9 minutes approx. To get her into the square, subdue her, kill her, and then all the things he does....the facial wounds, the severing of the colon, the removal of a kidney from the front of the victim...no easy feat, ..cut and rip the apron piece free, and be gone without having his running bootsteps heard by Watkins.

I would imagine that the haste shown there was similar to what he must have showed in Bucks Row...a bad location choice.

While many killers would be content to slash their victims throats and watch them die, staggering around, unable to call out, until they finally collapse. Or to watch them closely as life leaves their eyes after slitting the throat while on top of them. Blood staining is not really the foremost thought in most killers minds, thats why they are often cuaght by trace evidence of it.

But keeping as clean as possible was a possible motive for doing this while they were unconscious, as well as letting blood out of the organs within the victims first, to make the process less messy. He may have tilted some heads to spray away from him as he cut the throats.

What I was getting at is that it would seem he was dispassionate about the act of murder itself, we know it wasnt satisfying enough in and of itself, and this may indicate that the killer thought very little of "killing"...not the rest of the Ripper stuff,.. just the taking of life.

If thats the case, the desensitization may indicate his having seen or experienced killing elsewhere in his life.

To kill something is a powerful experience....for me, an entirely unpleasant experience, having had to put an animal I found terribly hurt out of its misery. I still feel guilty even though I know what I did ended its pain,.. not caused it.

Many serial killers speak about those few moments...many watch death happen in peoples eyes...some gleefully.

It would seem Jack was not in that category, and how he came to be so cold to the experience of killing may be part of what he does and who he is.

Best regards

[perrymason]

This may be a key point when assessing a Butcher vs a Slaughterhouseman....Butchers didnt always do the killing themselves.

Best regards

[DVV]

While many killers would be content to slash their victims throats and watch them die, staggering around, unable to call out, until they finally collapse. Or to watch them closely as life leaves their eyes after slitting the throat while on top of them. Blood staining is not really the foremost thought in most killers minds, thats why they are often cuaght by trace evidence of it.

You fearsome poster!

Amitiés (from far!),
David

[perrymason]

You fearsome poster!

Amitiés (from far!),
David

...Im pretty sure you know me for the man I am. I dont like killing ants.

But it would be nonsense to suggest that only killers have dark thoughts or fantasies, they are human just like us...and not all are delusional.

Everything that man is capable of...good and bad, is within us all. Some cannot resist one or the other, but we all have all the same potentials as far as behaviors go.

I can recall the case in the US where a wife drove over her husband several times in front of witnesses because he was having an affair. Ill bet she never thought herself capable of that before she did it.

Best regards David.

[Slimsid2000]

He might have worked in a knackers yard.

[cappuccina]

...my theory is...and everyone thinks I am nuts for it, but I don;t care, is that Jack was trained as a furrier's assistant...

I have Jewish relatives from the Lower East Side of NY originally in the fur trades, and a lot of their knives/instruments could have been used for the murders Jack committed, in addition to the somewhat incongrousness of Jack supposedly having a "shabby, yet gentile" appearance...Even the furrier's assistants would wear some garment made of or trimmed with fur as a "walking advertisement for the business"...the furriers tended to "dress up" a bit whenever they went out, even the assistants did, even if they were just going to the local deli to get a sandwich...

[perrymason]

...my theory is...and everyone thinks I am nuts for it, but I don;t care, is that Jack was trained as a furrier's assistant...

I have Jewish relatives from the Lower East Side of NY originally in the fur trades, and a lot of their knives/instruments could have been used for the murders Jack committed, in addition to the somewhat incongrousness of Jack supposedly having a "shabby, yet gentile" appearance...Even the furrier's assistants would wear some garment made of or trimmed with fur as a "walking advertisement for the business"...the furriers tended to "dress up" a bit whenever they went out, even the assistants did, even if they were just going to the local deli to get a sandwich...

Hi Ms Caps,

If the furrier also slaughters the animals themselves, I could maybe see that too. I think this man was exposed to killing in a fashion that was either unemotional or so repetitive that he became unaffected by the experience.

Butchers that didnt kill their own wares, or Furriers that bought skins I dont think Id see having the same repetitive exposure to death that a slaughterman would.

All the best, as always.

[Malcolm X]

``desensitization may indicate his having seen or experienced killing elsewhere in his life.``

the Ripper probably had, because most serial killers had a troubled childhood, in some way or other..but you only have to look at EDDOWES/KELLY to recognise the moster in him...but which monster we dont know........ the earlier 3 victims are different because maybe he was less experienced... not sure......but what you dont see with the first 3 are the face mutilations, which for him in his last 2 murders; is a different side of his personality shining through, this is quite interesting, why did he start mutilating the faces? and not Annie Chapman, bruises yes but no mutilations..... this i dont think has ever been discussed here... not sure.

i dont think you can use the ``not enough time to mutilate the face `` with Chapman, because he didn't have much time with EDDOWES either, yet he did, this is now quite interesting, i think we need a new thread for this one Michael