Elizabeth Jackson, JTR victim?

[Pontius2000]

corey, I just don't agree about the displaying the bodies. I mean, as bad as Mary Kelly was done, there's really no way it WOULDN'T be a display, even if he didn't intend to leave it that way for shock value.

but even if he did want to make a display of the victims, he would've realized that it was too hot for him and dismembering/dumping could've understandably come in to play.

[corey123]

Pontius,

Killers dont just drop everything and drastically change the disposal in their murders. The killer obviously did not care for being "Too hot" as you say, for if he did he would not have taken the time to nick the eye lids on eddowes, or removed the organs, or even mutilated them in the first place. All these actions would have greatly increased the chance that he would get caught.

Say it all you want, but this killer would not try to hide his victims, period.


Yours truly

[corey123]

Pontius,

Not saying its impossible, but it will take some extensive solid evidence to prove it. Unless that is made it will be only a theory, a possible one at that, but not one I would lean to.

This type of offinder would not as quickly as you suggest, change his killing habits. His M.O might evolve with experiance and his fantasy would broaden as he got more time to fufill the fantasy. He is a sadist and he wanted to strike fear into the community, which I believe he was very succesfull in doing.

The unsub obviously, for reasons unknown(but easy to speculate why) hated prostitutes or women in general. The reason for saying so is he De-feminized them, taking the Uterus and cuting off the breast, taking away everything that made them women. Disfiguring their bodies beyond belief, he was sending a message, though not that he knew it. Its all in the tell tale signs in his crime.

Yes, that was all speculatory, but it is most likely correct.

The tell tale signs in that of the murder of Elizabeth Jackson show different signs. He(or she though definantly not) was a preditor. Maybe stalking them. I have not enough to say whether the Unsub would have approached his victim or not. He is heterosexual. He disposes of the body parts in what he thinks are safe areas, though some(I feel it safe to say a small percentage) of his total tally of victims were discovered. In each case(I believe) the head was missing, or not found, ever in any of the four, so he might have kept them for trophies or sold them on the black market. I would say the former. He most likely did not mutilate in the open street but proabally in a work place or home base, where he felt safe. Then probally disposed of the body parts far from that home base.

Again, all speculatory. But sense so is the idea of Jackson being a ripper victim, this should be ok.


Yours truly

[mattwill]

Is it possible that these torso murders were practice kills, so he would know just how to kill and mutilate so quickly? I know it's far-fetched, but as I recall with the Cleveland Torso Slayer, some of the bodies were dumped and others were displayed to some extent. That is assuming the majority of those were by the same hand.

Then again, it would seem that Jack never totally severed the head in the canonicals like the torso killer displayed, so there goes that theory. Damn, I thought I was on to something.

[Pontius2000]

corey, the heat was not as hot at the time of the Eddowes murder. he killed two that night. then it got very very hot. then, he finds a prostitute with her on private room where her body would not be discovered minutes after the fact. but it's discovered the next morning and the search gets even hotter. so he kills another, in the same method. but dismembers and disposes the body so that it's found over the course of two weeks.

the changing of how the bodies are left/disposed of isn't drastic at all for an organized sexual killer, unless making a public display was part of the killer's motivation to begin with. and I don't believe that it was. he, imo, cared about killing and mutilation. after he was done, how the bodies looked or were disposed of was an afterthought. until of course, it became in his best interest to dispose of them in a more discreet manner.

I believe there are many serial killers who have changed their means of disposal over time.

[corey123]

Pontius,

"The heat was not hot on the night of Eddowes murder"? Are you serious? They had every police man out on the grounds searching for the killer. Mobs formed after the "Double event" in protest to the police, or in their words, lack of police success in the ivestigation. The ripper became 'Public enemy No.1' that day. The area in which Kate was killed was hot enough. A public square with some private housing, and wearhouses. A night watchmen standing but yards from the murder spot, and it was patroled every 15 minutes. It was hot enough.

Also, Jack the Ripper is not an organised killer. His methodology is partly disorganised. Yes, he is organised because of the lack of suspicion cast on him and the lack of bodily clues(Apart from the victims) left at the scene. But his lcation of murder of choice is very disorganised. His murders were perpertrated in a very small area, less than a mile, an organised killer would more than likely broaden his hunting ground. The sites of the murders of an organised killer would be miles apart. The areas he killed in were high risk locations, with no guarente of getting out. This is true with all murders, but his were highly risky. He rushed through the murders, not taking the time to do it properly, another disorganised traits. Leaving the apron for the police to find was also disorganised, I even believe there was a foot print near one of the crime scene(I seriously doubt I read this, but for some reason I remember doing so, please correct me if I am wrong) again disorganised.

The change in disposal in the victims that you suggest would not be a great change at all is incorrect. It would indeed be a great change.

Making public displays of the bodies would not have to be part of his motive in killing, the act gave him some thrill. If you are to suggest that he didn't arrange them, then I guess Annies and Kellys arms just flew into their empty abdomens on there own.

One last thing, which I sould have adressed befor this, if he was to kill a prostitute in her room, which he did do, he would not take the body with him, he would leave it as he did with Kelly.

Yours truly

[Pontius2000]

Pontius,

"The heat was not hot on the night of Eddowes murder"? Are you serious? They had every police man out on the grounds searching for the killer. Mobs formed after the "Double event" in protest to the police, or in their words, lack of police success in the ivestigation. The ripper became 'Public enemy No.1' that day. The area in which Kate was killed was hot enough. A public square with some private housing, and wearhouses. A night watchmen standing but yards from the murder spot, and it was patroled every 15 minutes. It was hot enough.

Also, Jack the Ripper is not an organised killer. His methodology is partly disorganised. Yes, he is organised because of the lack of suspicion cast on him and the lack of bodily clues(Apart from the victims) left at the scene. But his lcation of murder of choice is very disorganised. His murders were perpertrated in a very small area, less than a mile, an organised killer would more than likely broaden his hunting ground. The sites of the murders of an organised killer would be miles apart. The areas he killed in were high risk locations, with no guarente of getting out. This is true with all murders, but his were highly risky. He rushed through the murders, not taking the time to do it properly, another disorganised traits. Leaving the apron for the police to find was also disorganised, I even believe there was a foot print near one of the crime scene(I seriously doubt I read this, but for some reason I remember doing so, please correct me if I am wrong) again disorganised.

The change in disposal in the victims that you suggest would not be a great change at all is incorrect. It would indeed be a great change.

Making public displays of the bodies would not have to be part of his motive in killing, the act gave him some thrill. If you are to suggest that he didn't arrange them, then I guess Annies and Kellys arms just flew into their empty abdomens on there own.

One last thing, which I sould have adressed befor this, if he was to kill a prostitute in her room, which he did do, he would not take the body with him, he would leave it as he did with Kelly.

Yours truly

corey,
you said it yourself. the mobs formed AFTER the double event. which means the heat was not on him until AFTER Eddowes was killed. which would indicate why he sought out a prostitute with her own room, so the body wouldn't be immediately discovered.

you're saying a killer who leaves bodies out in the open wouldn't change to cutting up bodies and disposing of them more discreetly. ok, so then I guess you'd agree that a killer who kills on the street and leaves the bodies there wouldn't change his MO and kill someone in a private room and leave their body in the room. is that what you're saying? you make it sound like a killer absolutely won't ever change their MO. when in fact, if Stride and Kelly were Ripper victims, he DID change his MO TWICE. if Tabram was a Ripper victim, he changed it THREE times. so it's kind of ridiculous to assume he wouldn't change the disposal of bodies if it better suit his purpose. you make it sound like he was running around killing everybody with little thought to not being caught. if that were the case, he wouldn't have made it away scott free in 1888, much less 120+ years later.

the only thing that is pretty universally agreed upon is that he was a sexually motivated killer/mutilator. everything else, letters/graffitti/occupation/display and disposal is pure speculation.

[corey123]

Pontius,

Is your only way of argueing my points is to return by saying pointless things? Of coarse he would not stop his killing habits. The women lead them to there deaths, Kelly led him to her house. I never said he would not kill indoors, but he would not, and I repeat would not dispose of the body. He would and will always leave the body where it is.

That has nothing to do with his M.O. His M.O. is the victim type, the approach, the attack(suffication and cutting the throat). What comes after the M.O is the fantasy. I am sure you know all of this, so it confuses me on why you would include his disposial methods.
I would advise you to re-read everything on the murders, the heat is always on a killer, from the moment Annie was killed they knew they might have a repeat offinder on their hands. Your assesment that there was only "Heat" on him AFTER the "double even" is very untrue.

Anyways, a killer can change their M.O. but they wont change their disposal that rapidly. Sorry but they wont.

I would also advise you to check out those crime scene photos of "The black Daliah" to see what a ripper victim would look like if he had cut thme up in the way discussed.

Yours truly

If all I am saying is speculatory, then all YOU are saying must have alot of faith to go along with.

[corey123]

[QUOTE=Pontius2000;117523] when in fact, if Stride and Kelly were Ripper victims, he DID change his MO TWICE. if Tabram was a Ripper victim, he changed it THREE times. so it's kind of ridiculous to assume he wouldn't change the disposal of bodies if it better suit his purpose.QUOTE]

Pontius,

Let me tell you a bit about serial killers that you may or may not know. A serial killer is usually one person who kills for a reason, it can be profit, personal rage, or to express his belief. They usually have previous records, not always on record, but they do commit crimes before they commit their capital crimes. In the case of Jack the Ripper these crimes would be the C5.

A serial killers first murder can be exactly opposite of the more well know murders. In Marthas case, he killed her witha knife, same weapon. He stabbed her 39 times, still mutilation. He stabbed her in the throat, abdomen, and private parts, still the same areas of attack. He left her body where she died, same disposal. He killed her in a high risk are, same location. She fits the same victimology. So that would not be changing the M.O.

Here is a good example of what I am saying.
It comes from a newspaper article from 13,1888 Letter to Medical News.
It reads:

“Sexual perverts of this character never begin by the commission of crimes of such frightful atrocity, but yielding to impulses to do slight injury to their victims, find, as time goes on, that it is necessary to practice greater and greater cruelties, to arouse their desires and gratify passion, until a stage like the present is reached. Such has with probablility been the history of the present murderer [JTR].”

With Strides case, you cant really even use her as a example due to her controversy. You could say that something went wrong in the murder in which he did not begin mutilation. This, again, does not show a change in the M.O. He still more than likely approached her, upon asking her to go into the allyway with then she refused, enabaling him to peform his murder like usual, so he grabbed her by her scarf and pulled her into the yard.

But then you can say he stalked her and pulled her into the allyway without approaching her.

Shes not a stable example.
Sorry.
So in true, he keeps a fairly steady M.O as he kills.


Yours truly

p.s The idea that he is a sexually motivated killer is not even agreed upon.

[Pontius2000]

Pontius,

Is your only way of argueing my points is to return by saying pointless things? Of coarse he would not stop his killing habits. The women lead them to there deaths, Kelly led him to her house. I never said he would not kill indoors, but he would not, and I repeat would not dispose of the body. He would and will always leave the body where it is.

unless you have some type of inside information-which you don't- you have no clue what he would and would not do.

That has nothing to do with his M.O. His M.O. is the victim type, the approach, the attack(suffication and cutting the throat). What comes after the M.O is the fantasy. I am sure you know all of this, so it confuses me on why you would include his disposial methods.
I would advise you to re-read everything on the murders, the heat is always on a killer, from the moment Annie was killed they knew they might have a repeat offinder on their hands. Your assesment that there was only "Heat" on him AFTER the "double even" is very untrue.

MO = Modus Operandi = "method of operation". this includes his motivation, why and how he chooses a victim, how he kills, where he kills, how he leaves the body, etc etc etc.

Yes, dismembering the bodies would be a change of MO. just as Nichols was a change in MO from Tabram. Stride just having her throat cut was a change in MO from Chapman. Eddowes' face being mutilated is a change in MO from the ones previous. Kelly being killed indoors was a change in MO. so once again, your suggesting that Jack The Ripper would not change his MO is ridiculous. because it is a known fact that he DID change his MO on more than one occasion.

Anyways, a killer can change their M.O. but they wont change their disposal that rapidly. Sorry but they wont.

and once again, you are mistaken. there a many serial killers who have changed the way they dispose of bodies.

I would also advise you to check out those crime scene photos of "The black Daliah" to see what a ripper victim would look like if he had cut thme up in the way discussed.

that case has nothing whatsoever to do with the JTR case.

Yours truly

If all I am saying is speculatory, then all YOU are saying must have alot of faith to go along with.

all you are saying IS speculatory. just as what I'm saying is. BUT....the main point, that serial killers won't change how they dispose of bodies, is absolutely positively 100% false. so, you're speaking as an authority that JTR wouldn't change to dismembering and disposing of bodies when you really have no clue at all what he would do.

[Pontius2000]

You can also say that he purposely killed Stride in an area with a lot of foot traffic knowing that the body would soon be found in order to take attention away from the real object of the night....the mutilation of Eddowes. Stride = decoy.

you could also say that Stride wasn't even a Ripper victim.

in fact, you could say 1000 different things about Stride. but the fact of the matter is, that based only on the information that we know to be facts, Stride was a change in MO from the other killings. that's not arguable.

p.s The idea that he is a sexually motivated killer is not even agreed upon.

the idea that JTR was a sexually motivated killer is agreed upon by 99.9% of everyone who knows anything at all about the case. whether or not YOU happen to agree is a moot point. again, I don't even see that as being arguable either. you're just making a very bad attempt to be contrary.

[corey123]

Pontuis,

I guess you have not worked on many serial cases. A killer like jack the ripper could be motivated sexually is but one of the motives that can be brought up. It is NOT believed by 99.9% of posters. I do believe the murders were sexual in nature. Is that all you can say to me being "contrary"?

Come on, give me a good reason at how Jackson should be a ripper victim and I will stop.

I am not saying it is not possible. But it needs more evidence than what you bring forth.

Yours truly.

p.s I am only bringing forth what could be argued against her being killed by the Ripper. I have no opinion either way.

[corey123]

Pontius,

I am now through with arguing about this, I have put my points out there. And you have, may I say, badly answered them.

so I leave you to ponder them. Good luck with it.

Corey

p.s If you have any knowledge in how serial killers act, you could somehow predict how Jack would act. So I do have a idea how he acts. But of coarse you will say I am speculating and by sources unknown, even when I give you second hand material that backs up what I say, you refuse to listen. You have barely investigated this theory and you already back it up. I dont argue with those who are unwilling to see that they may be wrong.

[Pontius2000]

Pontuis,

I guess you have not worked on many serial cases. A killer like jack the ripper could be motivated sexually is but one of the motives that can be brought up. It is NOT believed by 99.9% of posters. I do believe the murders were sexual in nature. Is that all you can say to me being "contrary"?

Come on, give me a good reason at how Jackson should be a ripper victim and I will stop.

I am not saying it is not possible. But it needs more evidence than what you bring forth.

Yours truly.

p.s I am only bringing forth what could be argued against her being killed by the Ripper. I have no opinion either way.

Corey, let me explain some things to you. first off, some of your little snide comments show your immaturity. I have a degree in psychology and have been a cop for 9 years, several of which as a detective. it is very likely that I have forgotten more about crime than you will EVER know.

secondly, the reasoning for Jackson being a possible Ripper victim has already been discussed in this thread, go back and read it. she was mutilated as bad or worse than Kelly. the only difference being as how the body was disposed of. you are unwilling to accept that a killer will change how they dispose of the bodies. and you are incorrect, history has shown that killers WILL change how they dispose of bodies.

[corey123]

Pontius,

Thank you for pointing out my snide remarks. This is why I will discontinue the argument with you, who thinks he better than I. Thats good to know Mr.Detective.

I also love how you point out that you know more than I when you do not know me.

Good day.

p.s As you just said, I guess you dont get me when I say, "Its not impossible, but you need more evidence to prove it ", thanks again sir.