The mind of "Jack The Ripper"`

[corey123]

Mike,

No problem.

We all have to repeat so many things over and over again in these arguements.

But I do agree with Stride. As of right now I dont know what I think of her.

Mike,

Yes these folks like me do see a serial killer.

For once I agree with you.

I have always viewed Strides murder as a 'blitz' attack, a sudden pull on her scarf, in she goes into the ally way, then shes gone. Thats why shes so tipsy with me. The only thing holding her in the rippers view is that fact that her death is so similar than the others.

yours truly.

p.s sorry for the "choked to death" attack, got confused.

corey its ok....and Im sorry for being so harsh with you today....its not you per se.....its having to repeat the same stuff to try and set aside some of the theorizing.

I theorize all the time.....but the theories come from a circumstantial or physical piece of evidence that to me suggests something.....but I know that even a sound argument need some evidentiary substantiation to be taken seriously.

Regards corey

[corey123]

Mike,

Yes these folks like me do see a serial killer.

For once I agree with you.

I have always viewed Strides murder as a 'blitz' attack, a sudden pull on her scarf, in she goes into the ally way, then shes gone. Thats why shes so tipsy with me. The only thing holding her in the rippers view is that fact that her death is so similar than the others.

yours truly.

p.s sorry for the "choked to death" attack, got confused.

She may have been choked.

I did think you were saying to death but if you werent, my apologys.

But if she was choked, how would this help if only pointing out that she couldnt scream with a closed air way?

It is an element of her attack, thats all....its suggests a sudden attack, which would explain the clenched hand with cachous, it suggests that the killer used this technique while holding his knife, ...only Marys killer also does that in the Canonical Group, .... because the throat slit is just another element of the attack within this perhaps 2 second murder.

It suggests she was facing away from her killer. It suggests the killer was tall enough to grab the scarf. The twisting may have ultimately forced her to turn her to face the wall when she is cut and dropped.

It is part of the attack that led to her death. All parts of all the deaths are relevant data....particularly when folks like yourself try and assign 5 victims or more to a single killer.

Best regards

[corey123]

She may have been choked.

I did think you were saying to death but if you werent, my apologys.

But if she was choked, how would this help if only pointing out that she couldnt scream with a closed air way?

mike,

I see that the scarf was pulled, but we dont know how tight.

Just because they said it was pulled tight doesnt mean it choked her to death, and if it did why did she show no signs of strangulation???

Please tell me that?

Can you point out to me where I ever said SHE WAS CHOKED TO DEATH?

Im arguing about what.....that Liz was "choked" when her scarf was grabbed from behind and twisted and pulled?...dear god.............I dont debate issues that are straight forward usually......so why do so now?

Regards

[corey123]

mike,

I see that the scarf was pulled, but we dont know how tight.

Just because they said it was pulled tight doesnt mean it choked her to death, and if it did why did she show no signs of strangulation???

Please tell me that?

Well Mike I would say the same about alot you pull out, the scarf, the Knife,. All opinions but this one is based on evidence which you refuse to see, the profile.

yours truly

Are you seriously debating whether a scarf suddenly being tightened around your neck and pulled on would cause choking?

Truly?

If you cant even acknowledge a simple fact of physiology corey, then how am I to take anything you stand behind seriously?

Best regards

[corey123]

Well Mike I would say the same about alot you pull out, the scarf, the Knife,. All opinions but this one is based on evidence which you refuse to see, the profile.

yours truly

Really Mike? No evidence? How about the geographic profile???? Enough evidence for me to say he was local, unless you suppose he took regular trips down to whitechapel to rip off women???

Jesus help us.

A 15 minute walk in any direction from the single square mile would have been more than adequate. That the killer was local is again...a theory...an opinion...a guess....speculative,...unconfirmed, unproven....how many ways does this need to be said?

Opinions are not facts no matter how much you personally might agree with them....they need to be evaluated, and in this case, there is no proof that their "guess" was correct.

Best regards

[corey123]

A deduction based on a personal assessment of the data, and something that is completely unknown to this day and remains unproven, and without confirmation in any murder evidence physical or circumstantial.


Regards

Really Mike? No evidence? How about the geographic profile???? Enough evidence for me to say he was local, unless you suppose he took regular trips down to whitechapel to rip off women???

Jesus help us.

That's precisely as I interpret the evidence, Corey. Furthermore, there were plenty of other nearby districts where he could have found "unfortunates" on the streets, yet he still sticks to this narrow orbit.

Putting potentially contentious talk about geographical profiling algorithms to one side, and focusing only on the logistics and logic, all this suggests strongly to me that, not only was he walking, but also that he almost certainly lived in the "North Whitechapel" / Spitalfields area.

A deduction based on a personal assessment of the data, and something that is completely unknown to this day and remains unproven, and without confirmation in any murder evidence physical or circumstantial.

For example, The apron section in that entranceway means the killer put it there....not automatically that he was on a path home......although I see broader conclusions are made with even less corroborative evidence.

Regards

[corey123]

Sam,

I agree.

The killer had all of london to pick from, but he only choose women from this relatively small area.

If it had been more than one killer why did they all kill so close together??

Like I have said before the East end must have been spitting out alot of Lust murderers in 1888.

yours truly

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe he is saying that this very small confined profile was due to his mobility option, walking.

That's precisely as I interpret the evidence, Corey. Furthermore, there were plenty of other nearby districts where he could have found "unfortunates" on the streets, yet he still sticks to this narrow orbit.

Putting potentially contentious talk about geographical profiling algorithms to one side, and focusing only on the logistics and logic, all this suggests strongly to me that, not only was he walking, but also that he almost certainly lived in the "North Whitechapel" / Spitalfields area.

[corey123]

Mike,

you tend to shy away from anything that says serial killer in this case.

We can get a grasp at what the mind of this serial killer thought with the various tools we have to us.
The victimology, the geographic profile, the methodolgy. these all can tell us a bit about the killer and you , who thinks there is no serial killer WOULD think that you wouldnt be able to get a grasp. And we do have subjects to compare with.

Look at all the suspects we have in this case. They may not be the man who killed those women but we can study THEIR mindsets and compare them to various killers. You think we need the KILLER to know what he could possibally do next or what he could have been like and your incorrect.

Thanks for your info anyways