Ripperology - Researching Advice

[Fiver]

That last one is the most curious to me....when looking for men that killed strangers in dramatic and gory ways, why exclude terrorists in that search?

Terrorists have political agendas. None was expressed by the Whitechapel Murderer, so the odds of the motive being terrorism are rather small.

[Michael W Richards]

Terrorists have political agendas. None was expressed by the Whitechapel Murderer, so the odds of the motive being terrorism are rather small.

Interesting beliefs. First, that you think whomever the Whitechapel Murderer was...(or how many men were The Whitechapel Murderers) that he was communicative about his motivations for killing, and secondly that you imagine Terrorist acts are only to further obvious specific political objectives. And since we are down that road, you are aware that there were several known terrorist individuals in London at that same time? You are aware that street women were being recruited by local authorities to "spy" on some of their degenerate clientele? You are aware that the potential threats to the people at large in London that the police were investigating up until that Fall were primarily self Rule factions and individuals? You are aware that it was less than 1 year earlier that terrorists were planning on blowing up the Queen?

London had way more terrorists running around than serial killers at that time, maybe not wise to discount what was going on in London, and the UK as a whole, as potential sources for the killer we all seek.

Anyone COULD do what Jack did, but only Jack knows why he did what he did.

[Fiver]

Interesting beliefs. First, that you think whomever the Whitechapel Murderer was...(or how many men were The Whitechapel Murderers) that he was communicative about his motivations for killing, and secondly that you imagine Terrorist acts are only to further obvious specific political objectives.

"Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong."- Luke Skywalker.

I said that the Whitechapel Murderer did not express a political agenda for his killings. Some of the Ripper letters gave motivations - none expressed a political agenda. I also believe that all of the Ripper letters were hoaxes - that the real Whitechapel Murderer was not communicative about his motivations for killing.

I did not say that "Terrorist acts are only to further obvious specific political objectives". I said that "Terrorists have political agendas."

"Terrorism: The calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective." - Britannica

Perhaps you have some new definition of terrorism that the dictionaries are unfamiliar with.

Terrorist actions are similar, regardless of the ideology of the terrorists. Just committing atrocities does not tell anyone what changes the terrorists want. To get the changes they want, terrorists have to proclaim what their political objectives are. None were expressed by the Whitechapel Murderer, so the odds of the motive being terrorism are rather small.

[Michael W Richards]

By my response you should have known that I didnt need a re-fresher course in what you said. I addressed your point, I suppose in a manner that wasnt clear.

"Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong."- Luke Skywalker.

I find it interesting that some posters choose the above way to express their opinion, and some just stand by their own convictions and evidence. I imagine the belief is that by denigrating others opinions it elevates ones own.

I said that the Whitechapel Murderer did not express a political agenda for his killings. Some of the Ripper letters gave motivations - none expressed a political agenda. I also believe that all of the Ripper letters were hoaxes - that the real Whitechapel Murderer was not communicative about his motivations for killing.

Again, I know what you said, you gave an opinion that you dont see the possibility of any expressed political expression. That youve missed or mis-read some of the possible political connections isnt feasible. Acts alone can be expressions, and if there was a link of any of these women to known terrorist self rule factions, or perhaps the more militant socialist spin offs, then you have a connection to political movements. But as you say, you dont see any. As for the authenticity of the alledged Ripper correspondences I do have an opinion on that. I think its possible From Hell was written by the man who took Kates kidney. Whether he was the same man that killed Annie...or Liz earlier that night,...well, I am not convinced of that. But I dont think the man that took Annies uterus played pen pals with the press or anyone else. I dont think he was clever enough, or inspired to communicate.

I did not say that "Terrorist acts are only to further obvious specific political objectives". I said that "Terrorists have political agendas."

I am an older fella but I can read just fine. So the phase above doesnt mean that you believe acts that are committed by Terrorists must be politically motivated, but they neednt be obvious or specific motives?

"Terrorism: The calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective." - Britannica

Thereby...so violent terrorist acts wrought upon the general public are intended to bring awareness. One wonders if gruesome acts committed against the proliferation of Unfortunates on the streets might actually be rooted in a desire for political intervention and change also.

Perhaps you have some new definition of terrorism that the dictionaries are unfamiliar with.

There you go,... confirming my first observation.

Terrorist actions are similar, regardless of the ideology of the terrorists. Just committing atrocities does not tell anyone what changes the terrorists want. To get the changes they want, terrorists have to proclaim what their political objectives are. None were expressed by the Whitechapel Murderer, so the odds of the motive being terrorism are rather small.

Perhaps you just cant imagine scenarios where the murders, or more specifically perhaps murder victims, might be perceived as having any connections to the plethora of agendas being pursued by violent people living in that immediate area. I can envision a few, some as simple as a personal connection to one of these criminals, or knowledge pertaining to activities conducted by said groups that needed to be "contained".

If a violent gang robs and kills prostitutes for profit, does that then mean there can be no underlying motivations for those acts that have socio political implications?

I only began this to point out that in the absence of any hard evidence that validates the assembly of a Canonical group of victims by a single unknown killer, there are still a myriad of answers possible. Multiple killers, mis-Canonized victims, misinterpreted clues within known evidence.... Surely you have discovered in your time looking into these crimes that the current accepted line of thought is just that. Currently accepted.

My opinion that these resemble terrorist acts is because at least some of the murders were a violent public spectacle...just like a train station with bodies blown to pieces all around. The fact that they were street women could be because historically, these women are the most accessible prey. Homeless, starving, alcoholics, women who perhaps were married once and now are all alone in the night. Women with foggy histories and few people that will miss them.

And when it comes to the brutality we see, are there any men who would fit the bill better than terrorists?

Ill leave you with one hypothetical.....lets say Kate did tell her friend that she knew who the killer was and intended to name him to the police. Lets say she knew him from her Conway years and acquaintances, or maybe through Kelly. Lets say this man found out, and decided that she is a loose end that needed tying.

[Lewis C]

I see it as rather unlikely that JtR was a terrorist. Serial killers usually aren't terrorists, and in the few cases I could think of where a serial killer was a terrorist - the Unabomber, the 2001 anthrax mailer, Joseph Paul Franklin, the DC sniper - their acts were clearly not the acts of a sexual serial killer, as JtR's acts appeared to be. I also don't know what political objective would result in prostitutes being a likely terrorist target.

[Fiver]

By my response you should have known that I didnt need a re-fresher course in what you said. I addressed your point, I suppose in a manner that wasnt clear.

You did not address my point, you misrepresented my point in a way that contradicted what i actually said.

If a violent gang robs and kills prostitutes for profit, does that then mean there can be no underlying motivations for those acts that have socio political implications?

Fell free to explain how a violent gang could profit from killing prostitutes. Obviously there's no significant financial gain to it.

Also feel free to explain what your theoretical example has to do with terrorism or the Whitechapel murders. There's no hint that any of the killings were associated with terrorism. Emma Smith is the only murder that indicates it was done by a group.

I only began this to point out that in the absence of any hard evidence that validates the assembly of a Canonical group of victims by a single unknown killer, there are still a myriad of answers possible. Multiple killers, mis-Canonized victims, misinterpreted clues within known evidence.... Surely you have discovered in your time looking into these crimes that the current accepted line of thought is just that. Currently accepted.

There are enough commonalities to the signatures to conclude that there were two serial killers operating London at that time - the Torso Killer and the Whitechapel Murderer. There was significant debate at the time as to how many victims were the work of each serial killer. The press thought Polly Nichols was the second or even third victim of the Whitechapel Murderer. Period police who expressed a view were not wedded to the number five, others gave numbers between four and nine victims of the Whitechapel Murderer.

[Fiver]

My opinion that these resemble terrorist acts is because at least some of the murders were a violent public spectacle...just like a train station with bodies blown to pieces all around.

Your attempt to redefine terrorism does not change the actual meaning of the word.

"Terrorism: The calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective." - Britannica

Just because a crime is public and frightening does not make it terrorism. Terrorism has political objectives. If the terrorists never express those objectives, their crimes have no chance of achieving those political objectives.

And when it comes to the brutality we see, are there any men who would fit the bill better than terrorists?

Perhaps you have heard of the concept of serial killers?

[c.d.]

All good points, Fiver.

Could terrorists have been behind the killings? Absolutely. Although if they played any role at all I think it much more likely that they tried to capitalize on the fear and mistrust the murders caused. Although for me the possibility lags way behind a sole serial killer.

You could probably make a case that overzealous and fanatical social reformers were behind them as the murders did eventually bring attention to the social conditions in the East End. But simply having a motive is not sufficient in and of itself.

As for Kate and the significance of the mutilation of her nose I would be much more willing to see it in the light of retribution and a warning to others to keep your mouth shut if if had been her only injury apart from having her throat cut. It is like when people point to Mary's heart having been removed and claim this confirms some kind of romantic relationship while ignoring the flesh being removed from her leg.

Confirmation bias can be strong so that you see what you want to see but are blind to other explanations which are just as or possibly more reasonable.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

All good points, Fiver.

Could terrorists have been behind the killings? Absolutely. Although if they played any role at all I think it much more likely that they tried to capitalize on the fear and mistrust the murders caused. Although for me the possibility lags way behind a sole serial killer.

You could probably make a case that overzealous and fanatical social reformers were behind them as the murders did eventually bring attention to the social conditions in the East End. But simply having a motive is not sufficient in and of itself.

As for Kate and the significance of the mutilation of her nose I would be much more willing to see it in the light of retribution and a warning to others to keep your mouth shut if if had been her only injury apart from having her throat cut. It is like when people point to Mary's heart having been removed and claim this confirms some kind of romantic relationship while ignoring the flesh being removed from her leg.

Confirmation bias can be strong so that you see what you want to see but are blind to other explanations which are just as or possibly more reasonable.

c.d.

An excellent post.


Can I just confirm one detail...


Was MJK'z heart actually taken/missing?

In multiple reports it states that ALL of her body parts were accounted for.


Do we know the definitive truth about what happened to her heart?


RD

[Geddy2112]

Do we know the definitive truth about what happened to her heart?

I think Fergal Sharkey summed it up in his 1985 smash it...

[Duran duren]

An excellent post.


Can I just confirm one detail...


Was MJK'z heart actually taken/missing?

In multiple reports it states that ALL of her body parts were accounted for.


Do we know the definitive truth about what happened to her heart?


RD

definitive? IMO, no we do not.