Fuelled by publicity?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Phil

You are exactly correct -- this is such a short murder series if we just stick with the canonical murders, about whom as we know there is even some dispute (!) -- that it's hard to come up with hard or fast conclusions as to what kind of killer he was, if he always killed on such and such days, etc. Basically we know so little about this killer that we are clutching at straws trying to explain him and his crimes. Indeed the many suspect sightings probably don't help and only confuse the matter because many of them concern sightings of men who probably had nothing to do with the murders (e.g., Leon Goldstein in Berner Street), or are only sightings by people who were busybodies seeking attention or else people who were mistaken about what they saw.

Best regards

Chris

[Abby Normal]

I think it's pretty likely that Jack's primary drive was one of sexual thrill that he derived from mutilating women, but as a secondary motivation I have stated several times that when I study the facts of the case I see an adrenaline junkie. Kind of reminds me of Heath Ledger's Joker in "The Dark Knight"- "Do I really look like a guy with a plan? I just do things. I'm like a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it!"

I mean, obviously he had to have thought things through pretty carefully, but he also took enormous risks and sometimes escaped only through blind luck as a result. The ultimate example is how he hung around during the manhunt after the double event to drop the apron fragment underneath the graffito. When he finally reached safety after killing two women and also avoiding ALL THOSE COPS he must have been practically bouncing off the walls. "Yes!!! I am a god!!!!" I don't imagine he got much sleep that night.

So when it comes to his press coverage, yes- if he was literate, that is- I would expect that he collected press clippings of himself as other serial killers have done and laughed out loud at them and just bathed in the attention. Reading that he was described as a supernatural force that just "dropped through a trapdoor in the earth" would have made him feel ten feet tall and bulletproof. Not that seeking out such publicity had been his original goal, it was just a biproduct that he reveled in. Which makes me seriously consider the idea that he would have responded to all the attention to keep it going, and that at least some of the Ripper letters are genuine.

I agree with this

[bolo]

Phil,

[B]But doesn't such a view depend on the numbers he killed and when. Nichols and Chapman had been killed before any real press interest flared up.

If one were to exclude Stride and Kelly as "domestics", then he killed only Eddowes thereafter. I might be inclined to add McKenzie to the tally (as I see her potentially as a late Ripper murder) but that was well after the main frenzy.

in my opinion, Chapman got quite some press coverage, not to mention Eddowes or the so-called "double-event" as a whole. Even if we rule out Stride and Kelly, the public echo (and the fear of a faceless murderer) was big enough for the killer to revel in should he have been so inclined.

Speaking of Kelly, the mutilations were so over the top crazy that I always had problems with adding her to the canon. The fact that she was the only victim who got killed indoors is not a completely sufficient explanation in my eyes.

Regards,

Boris

[ChrisGeorge]

Phil,



in my opinion, Chapman got quite some press coverage, not to mention Eddowes or the so-called "double-event" as a whole. Even if we rule out Stride and Kelly, the public echo (and the fear of a faceless murderer) was big enough for the killer to revel in should he have been so inclined.

Speaking of Kelly, the mutilations were so over the top crazy that I always had problems with adding her to the canon. The fact that she was the only victim who got killed indoors is not a completely sufficient explanation in my eyes.

Regards,

Boris

Well once again it's hard to make conclusions when we have such a short series of murders. However, if it was the same killer who worked both inside and outside, and we only have one indoors crime, presumably he was not constrained by time and could afford to indulge himself. So to that extent, I don't think the Kelly murder was inconsistent with what went before. The guy had already done facial mutilation with Eddowes. With Kelly, he just went much further because he had the time to do so.

Best regards

Chris

[lynn cates]

what he really wanted

Hello Chris.

"With Kelly, he just went much further because he had the time to do so."

He did indeed. Of course, given the acoustics of room 13, he had to be fairly discreet so as not to tip off anyone concerning what he was about.

I have heard it argued that "Jack" engaged in the extensive mutilations with "MJK" because that was what he had desired all along. That brings up the interesting question, Why did he not do that from the beginning? Why do a high risk murder like Mitre sq when what he really wanted was wholesale carnage? Surely it would have been easier and safer at the end of August--and a fortiori the end of September--simply to have popped round to some tart's abode and do what "he" did in November.

Cheers.
LC

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Chris.

"With Kelly, he just went much further because he had the time to do so."

He did indeed. Of course, given the acoustics of room 13, he had to be fairly discreet so as not to tip off anyone concerning what he was about.

I have heard it argued that "Jack" engaged in the extensive mutilations with "MJK" because that was what he had desired all along. That brings up the interesting question, Why did he not do that from the beginning? Why do a high risk murder like Mitre sq when what he really wanted was wholesale carnage? Surely it would have been easier and safer at the end of August--and a fortiori the end of September--simply to have popped round to some tart's abode and do what "he" did in November.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

The fact that he did not kill indoors earlier that would have enabled him longer to mutilate might be a good argument that he was in fact learning on the job, first picking up street walkers and mutilating them at or near where he met them, and later finding a woman who had her own place. As for the fear of noise during the murder in Miller's Court I would suggest that as with the other murders, he slit Kelly's windpipe swiftly to silence her, and then was able to get on with the mutilations that might have been his primary motivation in all of these murders.

All the best

Chris

[Phil H]

That brings up the interesting question, Why did he not do that from the beginning? Why do a high risk murder like Mitre sq when what he really wanted was wholesale carnage? Surely it would have been easier and safer at the end of August--and a fortiori the end of September--simply to have popped round to some tart's abode and do what "he" did in November.

I think Lynn raises a very good point here.

To pick up on another recent post in the thread - Chapman's murder may have resulted in a lot of press coverage, but the MURDER took place ahead of that. IF (and I repeat IF) "Jack" was only responsible for three murders (culminating in Eddowes) then two of them had taken place before the main surge in press interest.

[I recognise that this will be irrelevant to those who perfervidly pursue the canonical view - but to those with open minds I believe this is a logic challenge to the question posed in the opening post.]

Returning to Lynn's points:

I agree that, in the conditions of the East End JtR could have killed a woman indoors at any time - the attack on Ada Wilson took place at her front door, and whether by "Jack" or not, shows that there were woman with their own rooms and that they opened the door to strangers.

On another point - was Eddowes' face deliberately mutilated (as Chris george suggests) or were the cuts on the cheeks a side effect of an attempt to remove the nose as I have seen convincingly argued here on Casebook? (I recognise that removal of the nose is in itself a facial mutilation, but I perceive a difference between that and the sort of thing (skinning of the flesh etc, done to MJK).

Phil

[kensei]

Phil,



Speaking of Kelly, the mutilations were so over the top crazy that I always had problems with adding her to the canon. The fact that she was the only victim who got killed indoors is not a completely sufficient explanation in my eyes.

Regards,

Boris

I'm not too sure about that. Yes, Kelly's mutilations were far and away worse than the early victims' but were they really that much worse than Eddowes'? Take a good look at the sketch of Kate's body as it lay at the crime scene, which was drawn by someone looking down on her. She looks like she's swallowed a live grenade. It must have been an incredibly horrific sight. In her morgue photos she's been cleaned and stitched back together so we do not get the effect we have with Kelly's photos. Eddowes seems to me to have been a near perfect midpoint in the escalation between the early victims and Kelly, plus she showed that the Ripper had become interested in attacking the face as he later did even worse with Kelly.

[Phil H]

kensei

...she showed that the Ripper had become interested in attacking the face as he later did even worse with Kelly.

He attacked the face in Eddowes case, if only in seeking to remove the nose, but did he otherwise seek to mutilate Eddowes' face? (The "V" shaped cuts on the cheeks seem to be related to an attempt to saw off the nose.)

Phil

[bolo]

Hi Chris and kensei,

Well once again it's hard to make conclusions when we have such a short series of murders. However, if it was the same killer who worked both inside and outside, and we only have one indoors crime, presumably he was not constrained by time and could afford to indulge himself. So to that extent, I don't think the Kelly murder was inconsistent with what went before. The guy had already done facial mutilation with Eddowes. With Kelly, he just went much further because he had the time to do so.

don't get me wrong, I do not have a pet theory on a second or third mutilator at work in the East End in the autumn of 1888, at least none that could be proven in any way. I'm just trying to see or "feel" the series and have difficulties fitting MJK in there for a number of reasons, like the date that looks deliberately chosen, the gap between Eddowes and Kelly, the location (Kelly's abode wasn't exactly a safe place either, and how did he get in there?), the absence of the heart (which is quite a leap from uteri, bladder parts and kidneys), etc.

Despite my problem with Kelly (and Stride) I still base most of my theorising on the C5 because it represents the current state of research by Ripperologists who know a hell of a lot more about the case than me. However, I allow my mind to wander from an orthodox view of the case to multiple killers scenarios that help to explain some its inconsistencies. Given the precious little first-hand evidence we have, it would be wrong not to do it in my opinion.

Regards,

Boris

[kensei]

kensei

...she showed that the Ripper had become interested in attacking the face as he later did even worse with Kelly.

He attacked the face in Eddowes case, if only in seeking to remove the nose, but did he otherwise seek to mutilate Eddowes' face? (The "V" shaped cuts on the cheeks seem to be related to an attempt to saw off the nose.)

Phil

Well, he was in an extreme hurry in Mitre Square. The fact that he attacked the face at all, whereas with the early victims he didn't at all and then with Kelly he did so much worse, seems to show escalation. Plus he also cut off a piece of Kate's ear. It's been suggested that might have happened accidentally as he was cutting her throat and that could be the case, but then again it didn't happen with any of the others.

[kensei]

don't get me wrong, I do not have a pet theory on a second or third mutilator at work in the East End in the autumn of 1888, at least none that could be proven in any way. I'm just trying to see or "feel" the series and have difficulties fitting MJK in there for a number of reasons, like the date that looks deliberately chosen, the gap between Eddowes and Kelly, the location (Kelly's abode wasn't exactly a safe place either, and how did he get in there?), the absence of the heart (which is quite a leap from uteri, bladder parts and kidneys), etc.


Regards,

Boris

Boris,
I'm afraid my thinking has tended to go in the opposite direction, and I know this is controversial, but instead of picturing two or three mutilators at work in the same place at the same time I've seriously wondered if JTR was actually responsible for much more than he's been credited with, if only for the reason that these kinds of behaviors are extreme abberations (and thank God for that), and multiples at the same place and time are just statistically unlikely. If the torso killings had Jack's hands on them, then the gap in time between Eddowes and Kelly is not as long. I know there are issues with that idea, but it's a theory, one I only suggest. And I don't think taking Kelly's heart is a leap at all from the earlier organs taken by the Ripper. How many murderers cut out their victims' internal organs and take them as souvenirs? If I was a cop back then, I'm sure I would have thought that whoever cut apart Mary Kelly and took her heart just might be the same bloke that cut apart Kate Eddowes and took her uterus and kidney several weeks ago.

[Phil H]

So kensei

Which murders d you think "Jack" might have committed?

We had a list of 14 recently which seemed a little contrived and illogical. Can you please give us a number and a list (even if only an interim one)? It would make it easier to assess your view.

Thanks

Phil

[kensei]

So kensei

Which murders d you think "Jack" might have committed?

We had a list of 14 recently which seemed a little contrived and illogical. Can you please give us a number and a list (even if only an interim one)? It would make it easier to assess your view.

Thanks

Phil

I don't have a firm number that I'm adamant about, I just like to consider various theories. I believe in the C5, and in Martha Tabram. I think that Annie Millwood and Ada Wilson (but NOT Emma Smith) may have been his early tentative work just like the way Ted Bundy started out peeking in windows and then whacking women on the head and running away before he ever killed. The torso murders- Whitehall and Pinchin Street- were just so depraved and grotesque and less than a year apart that they could easily have been done by the same hand that cut up Mary Kelly. I also consider Alice Mckenzie and Frances Coles. That would make 12. Then I look at the James Kelly theory and the whole "Jack the Ripper in America" thing with Carrie Brown and many others across the United States as was detailed in a fairly recent television show, and I'm very intrigued by that and James Kelly is one of my favorite suspects, but if that was the case he could not have been in the country to kill Frances Coles. I've considered him strongly as a suspect, but what I really think is that the Ripper was someone who has never been named. So, in what is admittedly pure speculation, I guess my tentative number is 12.

[Phil H]

I'm afraid I would have to part company with you, kensei.

The more I look at the case the more I tend to reduce the number of killings, not the reverse.

That said, I would not rule out some connection between "Jack" and the Torso murderer (i.e. the two men knew each other).

Phil