Time gap

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;381624]

3. The killer left London and returned

This would suggest a degree of calculation and organisation, and appears to be the preferred hypothesis for Pierre.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your ideas in this post.

But do your hypothesis above imply that the serial killer decided to leave London as a result of calculation and organisation? And what do you think could have been a motive for that?

I mean, there are many reasons why people leave places. So why the calculation and organisation?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

If the motive was purely to kill, and urge driven, he did not need to return to London, but could have continued elsewhere.
One assumes that if he did return and start again, this was a calculated decision.
I must admit I do not see it myself, we have no evidence to support that or idea or indeed any of the suggestions I gave.

[QUOTE=Pierre;381679]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your ideas in this post.

But do your hypothesis above imply that the serial killer decided to leave London as a result of calculation and organisation? And what do you think could have been a motive for that?

I mean, there are many reasons why people leave places. So why the calculation and organisation?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

My own guess is that the gap in October 1888 is that "Jack" was carried away and did eat of the kidney ("kidne") he mentioned in that letter - which I do believe is genuine. It made him sick and he was in the hospital until November, furious that one of the victims was responsible for nearly killing him.

Now based the insistence of Pierre that the events of 1888 were begun again later in 1889, I couldn't guess what the specific reason would be for that. In fact I even question if the later killings are by him. But if we agree they are, then in the interim history began to sweep "Jack" off the central pedestal of attention he craved. He relished the limelight, and found that AFTER the horror of Dorset Street, he had become "yesterday's news".

I feel we have to do a re-evaluation of the case, but by putting it inside a time frame. And I mean we have to think about how central the case is to the period of general events from 1885 through 1895. But I better explain this on my own thread instead of this one.

Jeff

[caz]

Hi Jeff,

I'm not sure a human kidney would have made the ripper sick, particularly if he fried it first. In 1972, the Andes air crash survivors ate practically every part of the bodies of those who had died, and mostly raw because the little fuel they had - including all their paper money - was used for warmth. It was the nourishment they got from eating such a variety of body parts that kept them alive until they were finally rescued when two of them - Nando Parrado and Roberto Canessa - managed to fetch help after a ten-day trek out of the mountains.

I do think the ripper killed again after MJK, but the longer gaps and less confident attacks could reflect a growing fear of being caught and reluctance to take such risks again, which may have dampened the urge to kill over time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pierre]

Several possible hypothesis (what is the plural of hypothesis ???):
* fear of being caught due to much greater police presence after the double murders. This may explain why Kelly was indoors
* JTR was not in London for the gap. Alternatively, JTR did not live in London but was visiting Lindon during months of the killings
* he had people staying with him
* he no longer had a motive (after Kelly) eg if his purpose was to humiliate Warren

Craig

Hi Craig,

I think I have missed this post. (Right now I am going through previous discussions to see what I have missed.)

You say "if his purpose was to humiliate Warren". It wasn´t.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;381694]

My own guess is that the gap in October 1888 is that "Jack" was carried away and did eat of the kidney ("kidne") he mentioned in that letter - which I do believe is genuine. It made him sick and he was in the hospital until November, furious that one of the victims was responsible for nearly killing him.

Hi Jeff,

Is there any data for that?

Now based the insistence of Pierre that the events of 1888 were begun again later in 1889, I couldn't guess what the specific reason would be for that. In fact I even question if the later killings are by him. But if we agree they are, then in the interim history began to sweep "Jack" off the central pedestal of attention he craved. He relished the limelight, and found that AFTER the horror of Dorset Street, he had become "yesterday's news".

But don´t you think that an external event would be more important than a slow process of internally based "realization"?

I feel we have to do a re-evaluation of the case, but by putting it inside a time frame. And I mean we have to think about how central the case is to the period of general events from 1885 through 1895. But I better explain this on my own thread instead of this one.

Jeff

Yes! And there is a time frame! It starts at an important point in time, it includes motives for the choice of dates, and it ends and starts again for importants reasons.

Well, and the period 1885-1895 is not of any specific biographical relevance but of course that is an interesting time period in the historiy of Britain.

Regards, Pierre

[Geddy2112]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Yorkshire Ripper take close to a year off?

[Pierre]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Yorkshire Ripper take close to a year off?

Hi Geddy,

I have never studied the Yorkshire ripper.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Of course you haven't, Pierre. Nobody whose specialisation focuses on the historico- judicial-methodological-socio-scientific would have had any reason to study one of the most judicially controversial and socially significant murder cases in modern European history.

People, why are you playing this fraud's games? Why are you doing his thinking for him? He's a great historian who has expressed his contempt for ripperologists many times, and believes that he is methodologically and ethically superior to the lot of you. Why not tell him to sod off and do his own thinking until he has something to offer in return?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Henry Flower;396866]

Of course you haven't, Pierre. Nobody whose specialisation focuses on the historico- judicial-methodological-socio-scientific would have had any reason to study one of the most judicially controversial and socially significant murder cases in modern European history.

Most historians have never studied that case.

People, why are you playing this fraud's games? Why are you doing his thinking for him?

Wrong. I am doing my own thinking, Henry.

He's a great historian who has expressed his contempt for ripperologists many times,

Wrong. I have no "contempt" for anybody. I do not subscribe to ripperology. That does not mean that I would hold any "contempt" for the individuals who are doing it. It only means I do not believe in the methods and products.

and believes that he is methodologically and ethically superior to the lot of you.

Wrong. "The lot of you" that you are lying to here, are often well educated persons. You obviously think you are superior to them, since you put yourself in the position of lying to them and thinking they will believe your lies. Sorry Henry, but they are smarter.

Why not tell him to sod off and do his own thinking until he has something to offer in return?

You are the one who should be told to "sod off" since you spread lies about others here in this forum.

[Henry Flower]

[QUOTE=Pierre;396872]

Most historians have never studied that case.



Wrong. I am doing my own thinking, Henry.



Wrong. I have no "contempt" for anybody. I do not subscribe to ripperology. That does not mean that I would hold any "contempt" for the individuals who are doing it. It only means I do not believe in the methods and products.



Wrong. "The lot of you" that you are lying to here, are often well educated persons. You obviously think you are superior to them, since you put yourself in the position of lying to them and thinking they will believe your lies. Sorry Henry, but they are smarter.



You are the one who should be told to "sod off" since you spread lies about others here in this forum.

You've spoken with authority as a historian many times, you've been asked by numerous posters to share one scintilla of evidence that you are qualified to do so. You never have.

You are a fraud. You are a liar. End of story.

[Henry Flower]

I've asked you a specific question on your unintentionally hilarious "major breakthrough" thread. As a historian you should have no problem answering it.

[Geddy2112]

[QUOTE=Pierre;396872]

Most historians have never studied that case.

How do you know? Have you got the figures of who and who has not studied the case?
I would imagine MOST historians have not studied the JtR case. How many Historians have there been?

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, you claim to be a historian. Is there any data for that?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi GUT.

I think I read somewhere that there was a fair amount of fog in October 1888. Is that what you're alluding to?

That excuse, and the excuse that heightened police numbers, patrols and Vigilance Committees, are most often used to explain that lapse. What many do not consider is that the first 2 Canonical murders both occurred within 2 weeks, they were almost identically executed..(pardon the pun)...and both women acknowledged to acquaintances on the respective nights that they were actively soliciting. Both were also in compromised health situations....Polly was drunk, and Annie was ill.

Those 2 consecutive murders establish both a preferred methodology, victim type, and demonstrate that their killer acted again without much delay.

The people who discount these facts do so at their own disadvantage, assuming of course they are searching for a real killer not a phantom.