Examination of a Motive

[Fisherman]

Interesting questions, Errata!

As for the knife, I do not think that there was an aesthetic component involved. I can see how you are reasoning, but you are reasoning from a 2010point of wiew, I think - back in 1888, knives and knife-carriers were thirteen a dozen. Meaning that the symbolical value would probably not be there in the same fashion as today.

Back in the early 1970:s, a thesis was presented here in Sweden, dealing with the spiritual value attaching to different forms of light. The author showed that the custom to light candles on the graves here in Sweden, involved the component of candlelight having an emotional value to us. Nobody would have come up with the idea to light a bulb, using electric wiring, and hanging it over a grave.
Not here, that is. But in Sardinia, that was exactly what happened back then. At that time, Sardinia was still an island that lacked electric lighting to a very large extent. They normally relied on candlelights and kerosene lamps as the night fell, and therefore, that kind of light had no emotional value to them, as it did to us Swedes. But electric lighting had! And so, the graveyards were equipped with a net of wiring, and over each grave, you could rent a light-bulb that shone over your dear departed ones.

I hope you see the analogy - as far as I can see, knives would not hold that kind of fetisch value back then. That said, killing by knife is of course a far more personal deed than killing by a gun, for example.

"How practical or how instinctive the guy is really affects a motive discussion. If he is compulsive and practical, then most things have some significance. If he is impulsive and instinctive, then a lot of things won't have significance. At least not that he himself knew. So is he practical? Instinctive? Both? Neither? How do we know?"

I would opt for practical, Errata. What he accomplished, combined with the time he did it in, speaks to me of a very practical man, more or less totally focused on his urge and taking all the precautions necessary to ensure success; ensuring silence, bleeding the victim off, rolling them over on their backs and cutting away, all at a very high speed.

But let´s not forget that there were five victims (alledgedly), and that there is nothing making sure that each victim was treated with the same outcome of a weighing of practicality against impulsiveness. Also, he would have evolved as a killer over time.

the best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

I hope you see the analogy - as far as I can see, knives would not hold that kind of fetisch value back then. That said, killing by knife is of course a far more personal deed than killing by a gun, for example.

the best,
Fisherman

Okay
A: I am totally stealing the lightbulb story, but I will conversationally cite you.

B: I agree there is little reason to have a knife fetish back then. The really frustrating thing is that being in 1888 doesn't automatically preclude it. Nor does it preclude the potential visual satisfaction on watching someone empty. If the guy had a thing for knives, this would be a lot easier. I suppose it would be a lot like having a thing for pens for us. But people have things for pens! Not even a little the weirdest thing I've heard. It's like on each corpse there is one cut, one mark and the only thing I can come up with is that he was playing with the knife. But I agree with you that I think he is practical. Which would mean every cut every mark has an explanation. Not a purpose, but an explanation. He isn't playing, he has a job to do. So not playing with the knife. ack.

Do we know how intact Kelly's chemise was? I realized while looking at the picture that a great deal of what I see as mutilation could be bunched up bloody chemise. That would be terribly useful to know.

[protohistorian]

Hello Errata, I realize it is not perfect, but I would suggest starting with re-occurring phenomena. Even if we start with the Macnaghten grouping, it should allow us a chance to isolate themes, progressions, omissions,and the like. It would also provide some scale for the rate of change within the suspect, as well as those elements he will not change. Dave

I should also add this line of reasoning would allow for semi solid speculations as to other victims at either end of the Macnaghten sequence. Dave

[Fisherman]

Errata:

"I am totally stealing the lightbulb story, but I will conversationally cite you."

Be my guest, Errata!

"If the guy had a thing for knives, this would be a lot easier."

Maybe he had. We sometimes conclude that he wanted to A/ mutilate, so he B/ used a knife, since that was practical. But even if mutilation was the ultimate goal, that does not mean that he was indifferent about how it felt to sink his knife into human flesh. That may have made up a perhaps secondary but important sensation.

"Do we know how intact Kelly's chemise was? I realized while looking at the picture that a great deal of what I see as mutilation could be bunched up bloody chemise. That would be terribly useful to know."

We don´t, I´m afraid. There was even a lot of uncertainty as to whether she was wearing a chemise or if she was totally nude. Different reports state different wiews on this, although the more accepted wiew is that she was wearing one. But I have never come across any detailed report of the state it was in.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I would opt for practical, Errata. What he accomplished, combined with the time he did it in, speaks to me of a very practical man, more or less totally focused on his urge and taking all the precautions necessary to ensure success; ensuring silence, bleeding the victim off, rolling them over on their backs and cutting away, all at a very high speed.

Totally agree, Fish

[protohistorian]

Totally agree, Fish

Hello Ruby, would taking all precautions to ensure sucess include attacking a woman outside a busy social club? Dave

[FrankO]

What he accomplished, combined with the time he did it in, speaks to me of a very practical man, more or less totally focused on his urge and taking all the precautions necessary to ensure success; ensuring silence, bleeding the victim off, rolling them over on their backs and cutting away, all at a very high speed.

I, too, agree that what we see in his deeds speaks of a practical man, Christer. One thing strikes me in what you wrote here and that is the ‘rolling them over on their backs’ part. Weren’t they laid down on their backs then to begin with, according to you?

All the best, Fish!
Frank

[Rubyretro]

QUOTE=protohistorian;150049]Hello Ruby, would taking all precautions to ensure sucess include attacking a woman outside a busy social club? Dave[/QUOTE]

Hi Dave..well first of all it depends on his motives for attacking the women in the first place. If you think (and this stays my personal opinion) that the site was more important than who the victim actually was, then he would have attacked Liz BECAUSE she was in proximity to the social club, rather than despite it (and nor because of anything personal against Liz Stride).

As for taking 'precautions' for success, then maybe he was a bit of an opportunist as well, not taking needless risks. For example, although I was very interested in the supposed tale by Nathan Shine..not because I believe it (it seems to have been inspired by IS), but because he said that he was coming from yet another Jewish Club meeting, nearby on Commercial Street. How do we know that JtR didn't try other places first, and decide on Berner Street because it presented less risk ?

Infact, although the club was very busy, I see that members actually used the front door to arrive, and left more or less in a bunch, with those remaining settling in for the singsong. Also that the yard was so pitch black that a member using the side door to go out for air, had to feel his way along the walls to get back in.

What's more, Liz was killed near to the wall, so that anyone looking from the window (from a lighted room into the dark) wouldn't be able to see anything.

From photos, I see that the door was folding and wood (with a little door cut in, for when the gates were shut), so it would mask people behind it completely, from the street.

Then again, the singing would mask noise, and nearby residents said that they were used to cries outside the club -so he may not have feared a tiny bit of noise.

The street was silent, and JtR could hear anyone coming into the yard -as he did with Diemshitz- and escape under cover of the extreme darkness.

Also he was armed with a knife, and had the advantage of surprise and desperation (not to be caught) -and I think that a lone person seeing him, would have been made short work of. Indeed a couple of people coming out of the side door may not of seen him in the 'black' anyway -not to be able to identify him except in a generic way.

He probably knew the Policeman's timings.

Finally if JtR knew that once he had made that tiny distance onto the street, he looked perfectly normal -and also that some 'potential' witnesses never came forward to the investigation anyway, or ( if they were Jewish) would give him a very wide berth, he may have felt quite secure and 'Godlike'..despite a nice adrenalin rush..

I don't feel that the risks that JtR took were necessarily as great as they appear to us on paper today..

...and yes, I think that he was cool headed and practical rather than frenzied and 'mad'.

[Errata]

Actually, in some ways, killing outside a Jewish club was a stroke of genius. First, the very location casts suspicion on the Jewish community. Second, the Jews in the area were already feeling quite a bit of heat, both the regular anti-semitic kind AND as possibly harboring Jack the Ripper in it's community. It made speaking up a treacherous proposition. Thirdly, Jewish communities tended to police themselves. They were not in the habit or of the inclination to involve themselves with the cops. Fourthly, despite the modern age, and the modern ideas, Victorian Jews still tended to be a superstitious lot. Bumps in the night go uninvestigated. Strange sounds are tuned out, and horrifying sights were ignored as soon as humanly possible. Did they believe that demons and spirits walked the night? Not especially. Were they going to risk being proved wrong? Absolutely not.

[Fisherman]

Frank writes:

"One thing strikes me in what you wrote here and that is the ‘rolling them over on their backs’ part. Weren’t they laid down on their backs then to begin with, according to you?"

They may have been, Frank. What I meant was that he seemingly tilted them from the outset, to avoid the blood. But of course they may well have been more or less completely on their backs as this was done. In fact, the crammed circumstances involved in Chapmans death more or less ensures that she was never anything but on her back!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Actually, in some ways, killing outside a Jewish club was a stroke of genius. First, the very location casts suspicion on the Jewish community. Second, the Jews in the area were already feeling quite a bit of heat, both the regular anti-semitic kind AND as possibly harboring Jack the Ripper in it's community

.

Well, I don't think that was just 'luck' (personally speaking).

There certainly must have been far lonlier locations in London than outside the club, but I believe that the site was chosen for the very reasons that you have hit on (ditto Mitre Square), and hammered home by leaving the apron bit under the GSG, just in case anyone missed the point.

Far from being 'a wild theory', Warren immediately thought of this possibility when he agreed to have the GSG washed off.

IF it's true, then JtR was 'practical' and cool thinking.

[lynn cates]

good point

Hello Ruby.

"There certainly must have been far lonlier locations in London than outside the club, but I believe that the site was chosen for the very reasons that you have hit on (ditto Mitre Square), and hammered home by leaving the apron bit under the GSG, just in case anyone missed the point."

That's a very good point you're making. It looks like C3 and C4 were perpetrated to implicate Jews/socialists.

"Far from being 'a wild theory', Warren immediately thought of this possibility when he agreed to have the GSG washed off."

Right again. And in his October 12th missive he expatiates this theme.

"IF it's true, then JtR was 'practical' and cool thinking."

Well, whoever devised such a plan certainly was.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

That's a very good point you're making. It looks like C3 and C4 were perpetrated to implicate Jews/socialists.

"Far from being 'a wild theory', Warren immediately thought of this possibility when he agreed to have the GSG washed off."

Right again. And in his October 12th missive he expatiates this theme.

"IF it's true, then JtR was 'practical' and cool thinking."

Well, whoever devised such a plan certainly was.

Cheers.
LC

So would this be part of a motive, or a deflection maneuver? I'm leaning towards deflection, simply because if framing the Jews was part of a motive, he would have started in on it from the beginning. Or do you think that there are indications he did start with it?

[FrankO]

In fact, the crammed circumstances involved in Chapmans death more or less ensures that she was never anything but on her back!

Couldn’t agree more with you there, Fish. The fact that she was lying very close to the fence on her back, that her left arm was lying across her left breast and that there were 2 cuts on the left side of her spine make it highly unlikely that she was ever on her left side during the attack.

All the best,
Frank

[protohistorian]

The last post on this thread is interesting to our contemplations. Dave

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=150774#post150774