The mind of "Jack The Ripper"`

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Not bad, but it does leave a bad taste in one's mouth. (Ahem.)

This accounts for many of the loose threads but:

1. It relies on Jack's being able to function quasi-normally.

2. The possibility of Liz's (or any LVP prostitute) performing such an act.

3. Both their being willing to engage only 5 feet from an open door with light coming out and music being heard. (Of course, Russian folk songs may have a funny effect on the male libido.)

Thanks.

The best.


LC

Hi Lynn,

I certainly don't see a prostitute (LVP or otherwise) balking at such an act.

I would suspect that they would have engaged in the deepest, darkest corner of the yard. Liz not being killed till she starts to leave and has already taken steps in the direction of the gate.

As for number one, don't we have ample evidence of other serial killers doing exactly that?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

reconstruction

Hello CD. Not bad, but it does leave a bad taste in one's mouth. (Ahem.)

This accounts for many of the loose threads but:

1. It relies on Jack's being able to function quasi-normally.

2. The possibility of Liz's (or any LVP prostitute) performing such an act.

3. Both their being willing to engage only 5 feet from an open door with light coming out and music being heard. (Of course, Russian folk songs may have a funny effect on the male libido.)

Thanks.

The best.
LC

[Mascara & Paranoia]

^ That scenario's a lot more plausible than most of the others (especially the interruption theory). If Jack did kill Stride, then that works for me.

I firmly beleve stride to be a victem of the ripper. The choice of knife in ky mind has no way to disregard the ripper and because of the change of his usual knife I belive it to be why the cut was superficial and differernt than the others.

The only gripe I have with that is that only forty-odd minutes after Stride is killed, the Ripper cuts Eddowes' throat and rips her open with one knife that most definitely did the job. Why would he carry two knives but only use one on one victim only? You could argue that he may have ditched the first one after it failed to do the job properly on Stride's throat, but I still don't see him having had two (or more) blades on him as plausible, as all the post-mortem stuff says that all the canonical victims fell victim to a single knife, not multiple ones. I think Tabram's killing would better fit the two-knife-theory.

Yet in the Hanbury backyard, since he would need a dead woman cut open to be able to extract the organ he takes, very little is done in the way of superfluous acts. He kills and cuts where he intends to take things from, and cuts the items free he wants to take.

True. But the Ripper's next victim had her face slashed and an additional organ removed. That and prior to Chapman, the 'only' post-mortem mutilations he performed on his first victim was ripping open her torso; her intestines weren't drawn out, no organs were taken. He could've been interrupted, but he also could've done what he set out to do with Nichols. We have no idea. What he do know is that from Nichols to Eddowes, there's a clear escalation in the mutilations and a change of interest in organs, so it's not too hard to deduce that the Ripper had killed Kelly, given that her murder wasn't on the streets like all the others.

Regarding spouses, I think you hit the nail on the head by saying that we know next to nothing about them. They can't realistically be suspected of anything in way of murder because we know nothing of what they were capable of aside from their c-wordish tendency to knock their missuses about (and not to stereotype, but I would've thought that would've been a lot more regular in those days than it is now).

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

Most likely I will regret this but I shall attempt a scenario.

1. I think the issue of whether Liz was soliciting that night it pretty much of a moot point. Regardless of what took place earlier in the evening, she is now standing by herself late at night. We know that she was a registered prostitute at one time so the idea of a prostitute plying her trade at any time is not too hard to accept.

2. There are just too many issues with the BS man for him to have killed Liz. I believe Schwartz's story although I take it with a grain of salt. I think the BS man simply cussed out Liz and went on his way after throwing her to the ground.

3. I think Jack approached Liz taking her for a prostitue or perhaps he had seen her before. Even if Liz was not actively soliciting and was somewhat reluctant, Jack could have sweetened the pot knowing that he would be taking back the money.

4. They go back into the yard. Liz, being aware of the deaths of Polly and Annie refuses to lift her skirt or turn her back on Jack. She offers oral sex.
The act is completed. Liz starts to leave or perhaps goes off to the privy.
As she is leaving the yard, she takes out the cachous (oral sex and all that - you get the picture). Jack is unsure of whether to stike or not. Things have never gone this way before. He makes a last minute decision to strike pulling Liz back from the entrance by her scarf. The attack is so swift Liz simply clutches the cachous. Jack, realizing that he is now so close to the club, and still somewhat paranoid from the deviation in plan, simply chooses to write this one off and goes off in pursuit of another victim.

How's that?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

alternate scenario

Hello CD.

"Why are we operating on the assumption that everything had to go smoothly and like clockwork every single time for Jack? Perhaps his only real opportunity with Liz came as she had her back turned leaving the yard. That could also explain Jack's failure to pursue things further."

I make no such assumption. If you can work out the details about Jack and Liz going INTO the yard, the deal going sour, Liz leaving and stopping for the cachous and then being done to death, I'd be delighted to listen.

The best.
LC

[jonwilson]

Yeah, anything is possible. People just wanna believe that he was a psychopathic killer that hated women. This could very well be the case, but we will never truly know. I didn't know that Jack took anything from his victims. Do you know if Jack had to pay up front with the prostitutes? He took the money back from them after he killed them right? People are also quick to pin the 5 murders Jack supposedly did on him without any proof or evidence proving that he was the same killer who committed the 5 murders he is accused of doing. Although some of the murders had the same mo, this isn
't proof without a doubt that Jack was responsible for all of the murders. We don't even have proof of evidence to proof that there was only one killer who committed these crimes. Could have been a few different people. I don't think this is the case, but we should all have a open mind. I myself believe Jack was a lone serial killer who hated women. I have a open mind tho.

I think most tend to believe that serial killers come from one parent homes or broken homes and that they're anti-social or whatever. I don't believe this to be the case with every single serial killer that ever lived. Most of us probably think Jack was asocial or came from a broken home or whatever, there is no proof to base these claims on. We don't know who Jack was or how truly his life might have been. He may have been born with 2 parents and had a decent upbringing and still turned out to be a serial killer for whatever reasons.

In fact John, its possible that he was a thief and was killing for economic reasons. Either money for the organ he takes, money paid to him to kill, or for money or jewelery or items that we dont know about that were on the victims.

He rifled through Annie's inner pocket and took her rings, Kate has things from her pocket on the ground near her, and we have no idea if anything of value was taken from room 13.

Before I would assume serial killer, I would first assess what other possible motives could be at work here.

I think Jack killed the first 2 Canonicals, possibly for economic reasons, I think Liz was killed in a Domestic Violence episode, likely for rejecting or insulting her murderer....Kate is a tricky one to figure...., and Mary may have been killed by one of 2 ex-lovers or 1 ex-lover and his brother.

Best regards

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

A well reasoned argument. But if we assume that given a choice Jack would have preferred not being hanged it all goes for naught.

c.d.

[jonwilson]

Also, I also believe Jack didn't wanna get caught. If he wanted to get caught, he could have. He most likely loved that he frightened people and that his crimes gave him a lot of attention, but he didn't wanna get caught for whatever the reasons may be.

[jonwilson]

I think most tend to believe that serial killers come from one parent homes or broken homes and that they're anti-social or whatever. I don't believe this to be the case with every single serial killer that ever lived. Most of us probably think Jack was asocial or came from a broken home or whatever, there is no proof to base these claims on. We don't know who Jack was or how truly his life might have been. He may have been born with 2 parents and had a decent upbringing and still turned out to be a serial killer for whatever reasons.

Of course if Liz Strides murderer came from the Club itself, or the cottages, he wouldnt have to leave via the gates at all. In fact a knife dropped into a soapy sink in the kitchen would be a fine hiding place for the murder weapon.

Best regards

Hi Lynn,

Why are we operating on the assumption that everything had to go smoothly and like clockwork every single time for Jack? Perhaps his only real opportunity with Liz came as she had her back turned leaving the yard. That could also explain Jack's failure to pursue things further. He was unnerved by things not going according to plan.

c.d.

If I may offer one answer, its because Jack the Ripper was not known for his desires to kill....he was known for his desires to cut into women he murdered.

What youre proposing is that Jack the Rippers goal was to kill, which isnt what the evidence suggests in any other Canonical victim with the exclusion of Stride. It suggests he killed so he could proceed to steps that were more probably the "drivers" for him more than the killing was.

Liz Stride was simply murdered, Polly and Annie were murdered so the killer could cut into them.

What is lacking here is any evidence that Liz Strides killer had any further intentions after causing her death....I dont think its reasonable to assume that 'Jack" would just kill Stride for no other reason than an approaching cart and horse...knowing full well he wouldnt be able to do anything more than that.

But her killer didnt seem to care about any approaching noises,....I wonder if that suggests uncontrolled emotions and rage or someone who intentionally just kills because thats all the time he had.

Jack the Ripper didnt show us that he ever intended to be caught or wanted to be caught, so suggesting he modifies his goals this one time and simply kills a woman with an approaching cart and horse isnt in keeping with what we can reasonably perceive as a man who is taking measures not be to caught at any time.

The approaching cart and horse must mean one thing to the killer....he will not be able to leave the yard via the gates unseen. Consider that for a moment....the person who kills Liz very probably heard the sounds of the cart and horse growing louder and closer, even if the cart never turned into the yard, at best he would have to wait until it passes by the gates to leave. Do killers stand and wait by people they have just killed? Or do they flee quickly? I think that point suggests that if Liz Strides killer killed her within 2 or 3 minutes to 1 and Diemshutz's cart arrival, he would have heard the approaching noise and had no choice but to wait and see if the cart passed by...or he would have to leave the yard into either the club, cottages, or the unused stables. That means to escape without detection he must exit the yard when Diemshutz goes inside....its the last minute that the yard that was stated at empty at 12:40 would remain empty.

That means for this to have been Jack, he would have perhaps a window of less than 1 minute to get out the gates unseen. Do we really want a solution that confines the killer to an escape at a specific moment?

I believe to assume its Jack and he kills her anyway portrays Jack in a light that is not substantiated in any other alleged murder.

Best regards

[c.d.]

Hello Corey. The problem is that Liz is in the yard, 9 or 10 feet from where the assault took place. Worse still, she is LEAVING the yard.

Check out the Stride thread.

The best.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Why are we operating on the assumption that everything had to go smoothly and like clockwork every single time for Jack? Perhaps his only real opportunity with Liz came as she had her back turned leaving the yard. That could also explain Jack's failure to pursue things further. He was unnerved by things not going according to plan.

c.d.

I think the main reasons for dismissing Stride is due to there being no mutilations and the amount of men she was seen with by various witnesses. The reasons I disregard her is because of the superficial (compared to the other canonical victims') throat wound and the venue in which she was murdered. That and all the 'evidence' (I use this term lightly due to only being able to go on Schwartz's statement, which is basically just his word and no proof of anything in the grand scheme of things) seems to point towards the broad-shouldered ruffian being her killer, who probably wasn't the Ripper, going by how he attacked Stride so openly.

Kelly, on the other hand, is probably disregarded as a Ripper victim because she was the only one to have been killed in doors and due to the sheer extent of her mutilations; it fits nicely with the theory of it being a crime of passion (well, in a clichéd novel) made to look like a Ripper killing. That and there's a fair amount of mystery surrounding the girl in question. But realistically, I think it's more probable (and plausible) that she was an actual Ripper victim; the throat wound was done in the exact same way as Nichols', Chapman's and Eddowes', and we know at that point that the killer had upped the ante with his mutilations and decided to indulge in dismantling his victim's face and taking (a) different organ(s) than just the uterus. So that on top of the fact that the killer had the time and privacy to do whatever he wanted makes it more likely than not that it was the Ripper who killed Kelly, rather than a supposed copycat capable of inflicting even worse damage than the 'actual' Ripper.

Hi M & P,

In a different take on the situation, I think one reason that Stride and Kelly are discussed as possibly non-Ripper victims is due to the fact that they both severed relationships with men we know really nothing about just before they died. And in the case of Stride, she may be dating someone new when she dies, and in Kellys case, we know she was seeing 2 Joe's simultaneously, both men as lovers likely, and she had just booted one of them out.

Stride as a Ripper victim requires faith....faith that an interruption is the cause for the missing mutilations,....and Kellys murder as a Ripper crime requires that we believe in that room he lost his mind. Its what the investigators thought, its one reason that Druitt remains a "suspect", and its clear when comparing that murder to earlier ones, the killer in room 13 did things that Jack never did before and many of them could only have served his curiosity or desires....meaning, in that crime scene much of what was done to Mary had nothing to do with extracting and taking her heart.

Yet in the Hanbury backyard, since he would need a dead woman cut open to be able to extract the organ he takes, very little is done in the way of superfluous acts. He kills and cuts where he intends to take things from, and cuts the items free he wants to take.

He didnt peel any thighs, or score any faces, or place pieces of the women under their bodies...he killed Annie so he could extract her uterus post mortem. Then he left.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

minor objections

Hello Corey. The knife is a minor issue in the Stride case. "Jack" was not locked in to one instrument. If that were the only issue, there would be no problem.

The same for the lack of mutilation. Since her head was placed between 4 and 5 feet of the kitchen door when she was found, it could be that someone was coming out of the door and so her assailant cut quickly and ran.

Trust me, the fatal objections are much more serious than these trifling items.

The best.
LC