From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[Lipsky]

I've always been averse to attributing the murders to the Freemasons, Royal Family or any other kind of conspiracy. I think it's the invention of fantasists who have been spellbound by the political intrigue and class struggles of Victorian London. If the killer had been caught in the act, he would've hung. There was no need for the murderer to risk his life with mutilation when a swift slice to the throat did the job. All this talk of the mutilations being used as red herrings is ludicrous. The police were no closer to solving the 'non-canonicals' than they were to catching the Ripper. The mutilations were an end in and of themselves. He did so because it satisfied a psycho-sexual need.

Agreed. I never sponsored any conspiracy theory, much less a silly "Royalist" scheme. I really doubt Knight himself took all this seriously. A good sensation, at best.

The mutilations piled up to serve the purpose of terrorism via public exposure of the bodies. It was no "ritual", or "coded message".

It was special-ops, without any gratification whatsoever. He who seeks gratification, takes his time, and revisits. Like Bundy and Dahmer etc.

[Lipsky]

bumping for Lipsky

Apologies for my delay! I was out of town, er, out of country, for a few days.

My concept has our man working "under contract" for a blackmailed party belonging to the higher social strattum, to "clean house" aganst a bunch of ill-informed, ill-advised poor/desperate/greedy people: a few prostitutes and some street thugs/landlords in Whitechapel. Probably had some info on some really nasty/hardcore sex scandal. Probably MJK's tenure at the West End brothel gave her some really nasty insight. So a scam was devised. And the blackmailed party, as happens in those case, had the self-preservation instict, and the resources, and the ruthlessness, to seek out for a "hired hand" to clean house.

I don't know if Kelly was the man. But I know that :
1. He fits the (proper) profile of our man to a remarkable degree, on a sexual, personal, and geographical basis. (A discussion on its own).
2. Timing of his escape/fleeing into London coincides with the beginning of the non-canonical attacks.
3. A convicted murderer by pen-knife/repetitive throat-stabbing who conned his death sentence into insanity prior to escape, on the date coinciding with the first successful murder of what I call "Phase II attacks" (Tabram) and launch of the autumn of terror.
4. Dubious statements after his self-admission at the end of his life.
5. His letters show patterns similar to those manifested by the murderer via actions and the singular communique (Lusk letter). I am not talking about graphologyor any other pseudo-science.

He comes real close to fitting the shape and form of our man. More than any other suggested/name suspect.
And yes, he didnt receive gratification. Couldn't, if he wanted. His marriage and murder of wife speaks volumes.

[Abby Normal]

Apologies for my delay! I was out of town, er, out of country, for a few days.

My concept has our man working "under contract" for a blackmailed party belonging to the higher social strattum, to "clean house" aganst a bunch of ill-informed, ill-advised poor/desperate/greedy people: a few prostitutes and some street thugs/landlords in Whitechapel. Probably had some info on some really nasty/hardcore sex scandal. Probably MJK's tenure at the West End brothel gave her some really nasty insight. So a scam was devised. And the blackmailed party, as happens in those case, had the self-preservation instict, and the resources, and the ruthlessness, to seek out for a "hired hand" to clean house.

I don't know if Kelly was the man. But I know that :
1. He fits the (proper) profile of our man to a remarkable degree, on a sexual, personal, and geographical basis. (A discussion on its own).
2. Timing of his escape/fleeing into London coincides with the beginning of the non-canonical attacks.
3. A convicted murderer by pen-knife/repetitive throat-stabbing who conned his death sentence into insanity prior to escape, on the date coinciding with the first successful murder of what I call "Phase II attacks" (Tabram) and launch of the autumn of terror.
4. Dubious statements after his self-admission at the end of his life.
5. His letters show patterns similar to those manifested by the murderer via actions and the singular communique (Lusk letter). I am not talking about graphologyor any other pseudo-science.

He comes real close to fitting the shape and form of our man. More than any other suggested/name suspect.
And yes, he didnt receive gratification. Couldn't, if he wanted. His marriage and murder of wife speaks volumes.

thanks Lipsky
well I have Kelly in my first tier of valid suspects. and yes he was crazy-like fox! and for many of the reasons you mention, but not on your motive. I would still posit that if it was him, or anyone for that matter, it was for typical serial killer reasons-ie they simply enjoy it, for lack of a better phrase.

so who was this group of blackmailed party? any names?

[Lipsky]

thanks Lipsky
well I have Kelly in my first tier of valid suspects. and yes he was crazy-like fox! and for many of the reasons you mention, but not on your motive. I would still posit that if it was him, or anyone for that matter, it was for typical serial killer reasons-ie they simply enjoy it, for lack of a better phrase.

so who was this group of blackmailed party? any names?

Thanx Abby!

No names, though various "socialites" have been named here and there. Wouldnt want to throw in names, though "Cleveland street" offered some.

But I'm not up for any libel accusations.

And -- I'd never go near the "royal" storyline.

But West End has had its share of pervert socialites.

And I am not talking about "standard" accusations of homosexuality though they weren't a walk in the park back then.

(Oscar Wilde, one of the greatest geniuses of all time, was destroyed. And Turing, decades later.)

I would suggest something really perverse/hardcore, probably NC/BDSM.

When I say "blackmailed party" I mean one person. Dont think it was more than that.

[c.d.]

My notion is that our man roamed the streets after the murders, and the pubs, and has his ear "to the ground" so to speak.

So you think it was Van Gogh, huh?

c.d.

[Lipsky]

My notion is that our man roamed the streets after the murders, and the pubs, and has his ear "to the ground" so to speak.

So you think it was Van Gogh, huh?

c.d.

C.d.... that was a fabulous one!

In some obscure poetic way, his knife was his "brush" so.....

[Harry D]

Agreed. I never sponsored any conspiracy theory, much less a silly "Royalist" scheme. I really doubt Knight himself took all this seriously. A good sensation, at best.

The mutilations piled up to serve the purpose of terrorism via public exposure of the bodies. It was no "ritual", or "coded message".

It was special-ops, without any gratification whatsoever.

Why does there have to be a "terrorist" or "special-ops" angle to this? Why aren't the Whitechapel murders simply a progenitor for serial killing as we know it?

He who seeks gratification, takes his time, and revisits. Like Bundy and Dahmer etc.

Difference being that our killer operated in an overcrowded slum. He didn't have the luxury of storing bodies or transporting them to discreet locations like more modern serial killers. He did what he could with the time that he had.

[c.d.]

C.d.... that was a fabulous one!

In some obscure poetic way, his knife was his "brush" so.....

Thank you, Lipsky. I was pretty proud of that one myself.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

C.d.... that was a fabulous one!

In some obscure poetic way, his knife was his "brush" so.....

hi lipsky
I agree with this to an extent. like BTK denis rader said-it was all about the rope. He got off on what his rope, his weapon, could do to someone. even himself-he used to take pictures of himself bound with rope. I think the ripper had a similar fascination with his knife, and what it could do to the female body. and the shock (and attention) that his work or art left behind.

[Lipsky]

hi lipsky
I agree with this to an extent. like BTK denis rader said-it was all about the rope. He got off on what his rope, his weapon, could do to someone. even himself-he used to take pictures of himself bound with rope. I think the ripper had a similar fascination with his knife, and what it could do to the female body. and the shock (and attention) that his work or art left behind.

Thank you Abby.
It's one of the reasons I think Kelly makes a very valid "candidate" -- though I am more interested in dismantling the "puzzle" of our man rather than attributing one of the flying-around names to it.

[Lipsky]

Why does there have to be a "terrorist" or "special-ops" angle to this? Why aren't the Whitechapel murders simply a progenitor for serial killing as we know it?



Difference being that our killer operated in an overcrowded slum. He didn't have the luxury of storing bodies or transporting them to discreet locations like more modern serial killers. He did what he could with the time that he had.

The Whitechapel murders cannot be viewed, in my opinion, as a progenitor for serial killing as we know it. I am sure this was not the killer's motive anyway, to leave some sort of legacy. This was a man on a mission. So the first thing to do is to identify that reason, and "reason" with it. If we simply label it as some random killing spree, then we cannot, by any means, answer why this was a set of attacks performed indeed, as you yourself correctly state, in an overcrowded slum.

If the killings were random, the victims could have been picked up anywhere around London - god knows, the place was infested with prostitutes.

And this could have easily been a missing persons case, why would our man limit himself to such a narrow space and time window?

As long as we persist to that old and tired notion of "random" killing, we cannot answer that recurring question: why so close? why form such a narrow corridor in space-time?

The man , proven to be ruthless and cunning, could not go to the effort of moving a bit around to take his time and complete the killings anywhere in London?

The recurring question actually dismantles both arguments of "random" killings and "gratification".

Noone who seeks gratification bothers to put himself in a public spot, albeit "secluded", just for a few minutes of pleasure. Why not create a "safe place" and take his time, as Bundy did (outdoors) or Dahmer did (indoors)? They were indeed sex-driven killers. Our man was not. And the victims were not random, hence the necessity to strike in such close proximity, in a very short window of time (2 and a half yeas between early spring 88 attacks and the murder of Coles), with increased unnecessary risk that leaves little to no room for extended pleasure (IF that was the motive??? - i believe it wasnt).

Special-ops is the only term that can describe a series of horrible crimes with NO HARD EVIDENCE from the killer, NO eyewitness except for the double event where both sightings (by jews and with antisemite references) were (in my opinion) deliberate. Clean-slate operations that a "lunatic" could n e v e r perform.

Terrorism is used by me to explain why he left the bodies in convenient public exposure - including MJK.

[APerno]

Just some random challenges for discourse sake.

The Whitechapel murders cannot be viewed, in my opinion, as a progenitor for serial killing as we know it. I am sure this was not the killer's motive anyway, to leave some sort of legacy. This was a man on a mission. So the first thing to do is to identify that reason, and "reason" with it. If we simply label it as some random killing spree, then we cannot, by any means, answer why this was a set of attacks performed indeed, as you yourself correctly state, in an overcrowded slum.

If the killings were random, the victims could have been picked up anywhere around London - god knows, the place was infested with prostitutes.

No, intercity movement was uncommon to the poor and he needed to operate within his safe zone.

And this could have easily been a missing persons case, why would our man limit himself to such a narrow space and time window?

Because he wasn't in control of his behavior, he was a psychopath.

As long as we persist to that old and tired notion of "random" killing, we cannot answer that recurring question: why so close? why form such a narrow corridor in space-time?

This man was terrorizing his neighborhood, his neighbors, the people he knew and walked with. That was the trill.

The man , proven to be ruthless and cunning, could not go to the effort of moving a bit around to take his time and complete the killings anywhere in London?

He wasn't that cunning, just a disorganized opportunist who got lucky and would have been eventually collared.

The recurring question actually dismantles both arguments of "random" killings and "gratification".

Noone who seeks gratification bothers to put himself in a public spot, albeit "secluded", just for a few minutes of pleasure. Why not create a "safe place" and take his time, as Bundy did (outdoors) or Dahmer did (indoors)? They were indeed sex-driven killers. Our man was not. And the victims were not random, hence the necessity to strike in such close proximity, in a very short window of time (2 and a half yeas between early spring 88 attacks and the murder of Coles), with increased unnecessary risk that leaves little to no room for extended pleasure (IF that was the motive??? - i believe it wasnt).

They were in fact random, as part of a particular sub group, which were easy targets.

Special-ops is the only term that can describe a series of horrible crimes with NO HARD EVIDENCE from the killer, NO eyewitness except for the double event where both sightings (by jews and with antisemite references) were (in my opinion) deliberate. Clean-slate operations that a "lunatic" could n e v e r perform.

You are arguing that he is a professional by pointing out that he failed to act in a logical and most beneficial manner. That's paradoxical; he did all those things wrong, that you mention, because he was a frenzied, impulsive psychopath. Him doing it all wrong makes the argument.

Terrorism is used by me to explain why he left the bodies in convenient public exposure - including MJK.

It seems this won't post unless I write something here.

[Lipsky]

"No, intercity movement was uncommon to the poor and he needed to operate within his safe zone.
Because he wasn't in control of his behavior, he was a psychopath.
This man was terrorizing his neighborhood, his neighbors, the people he knew and walked with. That was the trill.
He wasn't that cunning, just a disorganized opportunist who got lucky and would have been eventually collared.
They were in fact random, as part of a particular sub group, which were easy targets.
You are arguing that he is a professional by pointing out that he failed to act in a logical and most beneficial manner. That's paradoxical; he did all those things wrong, that you mention, because he was a frenzied, impulsive psychopath. Him doing it all wrong makes the argument."

I think this is just a summed up version of arguments heard for decades, from those contemporary times, and still going nowhere.
Some of them are contradicting each other.

I would have to say that two reasons make serial killers stop: arrest or death. Zodiac being the most notable example of the latter category. John Douglas inserted a third option: laying low from fear of arrest --- but that can only last so long. Serial killers are not known to just "withdraw".

A man "not in control of his behavior" , i.e. a "disorganized" murderer, would have been caught.

A man who specifically chooses a limited number of victims, for a short period of time, is someone who "executes" and then stops, because the motive is not a killing spree on sex-driven impulse. This is proven de facto.

I cannot accept that our man could pull off the Double Event yet he could not have moved beyond the limited geolocation of the murders to throw the police off-tracks.

No explanation, rationale or proof can be provided for the tired argument of "random victims", when sheer common sense and circumstantial evidence point to the fact that most, if not all of them, knew each other, and that there is definetely "bizarre" behavior prior to murder with hinting at "sudden profit".

He didn't do anything "wrong" --- immoral, vicious, ruthless, but how was anything he did "wrong" from his angle? He left no physical hard evidence, he could intimidate his victims, the witnesses of deliberate sightings and all the public with the exposure of the bodies. He intimidated Mishter Lusk and he was never caught, nor killed in action. From his inhuman angle, he was 100% successful.

And he led subsequent researchers completely off-track, with ridiculous "royalist" theories or "random victims" narratives.

[Michael W Richards]

There is already sufficient evidence that Polly and Annie met this killers while they were soliciting, the only Canonical women known to have been doing so at the moment they met their killer. Does this mean that for certain these were then random pick-ups? Nothing is guaranteed. But its far more probable that we have 2 cases of stranger attacks than is apparent in the murder of Mary Kelly, for example. That to me is the only murder where the evidence points to someone she knew well.

In any case of murder, its far easier to solve where the victim and killer knew each other prior to that act. Killing strangers, in many ways, are very hard to solve murders, and very often they are serial in nature. We have that in victims 1 and 2. After that, a month and some very different apparent objectives make a continuing series by the same person less likely, particularly when you have victims killed by people they knew.

[Lipsky]

There is already sufficient evidence that Polly and Annie met this killers while they were soliciting, the only Canonical women known to have been doing so at the moment they met their killer. Does this mean that for certain these were then random pick-ups? Nothing is guaranteed. But its far more probable that we have 2 cases of stranger attacks than is apparent in the murder of Mary Kelly, for example. That to me is the only murder where the evidence points to someone she knew well.

In any case of murder, its far easier to solve where the victim and killer knew each other prior to that act. Killing strangers, in many ways, are very hard to solve murders, and very often they are serial in nature. We have that in victims 1 and 2. After that, a month and some very different apparent objectives make a continuing series by the same person less likely, particularly when you have victims killed by people they knew.

I do not quite follow the logic of these arguments.

It seems that "theories" are developed "as it goes" to fit the very strange and fragmented historical data. But this way you do not build a theory but a straightjacket that suffocates the historical evidence. I hope this doesnt sound rude, i am simply trying to comment on the reasoning of such arguments.

The M.O. is the throat. Focus on that. The mutilations are gradual, and the only explanation , the only reasonable explanation that presents a theory and not some deformed straightjacket, is that motive, mutilations, and victim selection must converge in one direction which is only visible from the killer's angle:

these were hand-picked executions by a man who knew them all and could locate himself as close as they did, for the wholesale period of the murders, shortly prior, and possible shortly afterwards.

This is the only theory that holds water no matter how you choose to approach it, and this theory is more important than the actual name of the killer.