Did Jack kill more than three?

[Doctor X]

To answer your question, I would hesitate to even speculate about the Ripper's psychological status and history - we simply have too little information. In my view, it is not recommendable to diagnose an unknown person we know so little about.

Bears repeating.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Vigilantee]

Yes I think its actually a waste of time contemplating his mental state.

So getting back to what this thread is supposed to be about, what features appear in the prior murders that dont feature in the Kelly case apart from the fact its indoors?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn Lauritz Andersson,

I for one agree with you on the Domestic violence attack on Mary K.

Because Jack's signature was not there.

Do you think that Jack may have been an Anger retaliatory killer? Jack killing older woman. Perhaps seeing his mother in them?

NOV9

Thank you, NOV9.

Well, the Ripper's signature was apparent on Kelly to some degree, that should be acknowledged - however, to me Kelly's victimology and male circuits of friends at the time(combined with the modus operandi/attack approach of the killer in Millers Court and the vast overkill as well as - possibly - the nature of some of the mutilations) concerns me more.

To answer your question, I would hesitate to even speculate about the Ripper's psychological status and history - we simply have too little information. In my view, it is not recommendable to diagnose an unknown person we know so little about.

All the best

[Jon Guy]

Either way I can see a link here between Eddowes and Kelly, even if you cannot, a specific obsession with the face perhaps?
Observer

Spot on Observer !!

Facial mutilation links between Kelly and Eddowes

Torso mutilation links between Kelly and Chapman.

[Dan Norder]

I for one agree with you on the Domestic violence attack on Mary K.

Because Jack's signature was not there.

Well, I guess you need to go look up what signature even means, because every expert on signatures who has looked at the case says it most certainly is there in the Kelly murder.

[NOV9]

Actually, in Eddowes' case, he did a lot more irrational hacking and destroyed a large number of organs in comparison to Chapman. The extent of hacking and destruction inside Eddowes' body was so great that Dr Bagster Phillips (who in Chapman's case had considered the murderer to possess 'surgical skill' because of the expertise displayed by the wounds) came to the conclusion that she ha fallen victim to another killer than Chapman.

No doubt, there was a lot more irrational, unnecessary cutting and destruction in Eddowes' body than in the previous murders.
Of course, this can perhaps be attributed to the difficult circumstances on the crime scene (with regular patroling by PC:s) rather than any psychological reasons.

All the best

Glenn Lauritz Andersson,

I for one agree with you on the Domestic violence attack on Mary K.

Because Jack's signature was not there.

Do you think that Jack may have been an Anger retaliatory killer? Jack killing older woman. Perhaps seeing his mother in them?

NOV9

[Observer]

Hi Glen

Observer.

Eyelids?
Kelly's face was destroyed altogether - rather meaningless in trying to find 'links' and compare details such as nicked eyelids when all of her facial features were practically obliterated - and the same goes for the rest of the mutilations on Kelly.

Yes, I know that many people place great importance in the circumstance that she was murdered indoors, but at least as far as I am concerned, that fact is in no way the most legitimate to put her inclusion into question - as has been debated already in numerous threads.



All the best

I stand corrected, I was writing from memory when I mentioned that Kelly's eyelids were removed, it seems that it was her eyebrows that were partially removed. But the killer does display a need to remove the eyebrows, and as I said the killer of Eddowes cut through her upper eyelids, was he trying to remove them? Either way I can see a link here between Eddowes and Kelly, even if you cannot, a specific obsession with the face perhaps?

As you say, to exclude Kelly from the series on the sole basis that she was murdered indoors would be sheer folly.
Observer

[Doctor X]

Actually, in Eddowes' case, he did a lot more irrational hacking. . . .

Depends on how you read his intent--as objective an exercise that is--in that if his primary purpose is removing things, he does a better job of it with Eddowes. Of course, his intent could just be gutting and slashing at the privates--which he does--and taking the organs are secondary.

So . . . who knows?

Of course, this can perhaps be attributed to the difficult circumstances on the crime scene (with regular patroling by PC:s) rather than any psychological reasons.

"It were bloody dark, mate!"



--J.D.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

It depends, perhaps, on how one weighs the evidence. Clearly he "expanded" his intentions as you note--and if you accept Mary Kelly as his . . . he expands quite extensively. However, he does not muck up the taking of the uterus with Eddowes as he did with Chapman, he also improves his abdominal opening and deals with the intestines better.
[...] His technique improved grossly--dealing with the umbilicus--and getting the intestines out of the way. He takes a uterus without hacking the bladder.

Actually, in Eddowes' case, he did a lot more irrational hacking and destroyed a large number of organs in comparison to Chapman. The extent of hacking and destruction inside Eddowes' body was so great that Dr Bagster Phillips (who in Chapman's case had considered the murderer to possess 'surgical skill' because of the expertise displayed by the wounds) came to the conclusion that she ha fallen victim to another killer than Chapman.

No doubt, there was a lot more irrational, unnecessary cutting and destruction in Eddowes' body than in the previous murders.
Of course, this can perhaps be attributed to the difficult circumstances on the crime scene (with regular patroling by PC:s) rather than any psychological reasons.

All the best

[Doctor X]

I am not so sure he actually 'refined' his technique at all

It depends, perhaps, on how one weighs the evidence. Clearly he "expanded" his intentions as you note--and if you accept Mary Kelly as his . . . he expands quite extensively. However, he does not muck up the taking of the uterus with Eddowes as he did with Chapman, he also improves his abdominal opening and deals with the intestines better.

I certainly don't believe they were planned to any extent.

Again, it may depend on how you weigh the evidence. I think it clear from Chapman and Eddowes he wanted to remove (an) organ(s) for whatever reason. His technique improved grossly--dealing with the umbilicus--and getting the intestines out of the way. He takes a uterus without hacking the bladder. Yet, he still hacks. "Planned," then, could be no more than "I think next time I will take a trophy" all the way to stepping outside looking for a victim and intending to do just that.

I think the prostitutes were targets of opportunity, and that shows intent--picking a victim who is drunk, willing to walk to a secluded area, et cetera. I take "impulse" to mean one who has the acute urge to do something. I do not see that in Jack, but who knows?

But that's about it, as far as I am concerned.

Exactly. One can go around in circles with the conclusions being only as good as the assumptions. I mentioned the alcoholism of the victims. So did Jack have the foresight to know that drunk victims are easier? Or were the majority of prostitutes on the sauce during the time of his attacks? Or is it just coincidence? I could run with that and write a book about how Jack was abused by a drunken mother who made him dress up like Elvis!

I am not against the "Canonical Five" per se. If they are generally accepted, it is because of their similarities and progression; it should not be because of some label. As such, I am happy to consider others--like Tabram--and consider limiting the numbers if the argument justifies it.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I would have to disagree with that. He just so "happens" to encounter a prostitute and "on impulse" murders the prostitute . . . then does this again "on impulse" . . . while "on impulse" refining his technique with each victim?

Well, many serial murderers have acted on impulse, and since there were about 1200 prostitutes in Whitechapel alone, he had access to a vast selection.
I am not so sure he actually 'refined' his technique at all - 'refine' might the wrong word; sure, in Eddowes' case he ADDED the cuts in the face, but otherwise there were a larger degree of irrational and agressive cuts to the inside of the body with each victim, which in turn might imply an increasing mental deteriation.
Yes, I do believe he acted on impulse and that - like in amny other serial killer cases - his crimes were of compulsory nature. I certainly don't believe they were planned to any extent.
However, it is possible he might have picked out his victims to some dgree from watching them operating or perhaps he even might have been a prior client to some of them. But that's about it, as far as I am concerned.

I tend to avoid absolutes.

Which of course is a good thing and exctly one of the main reasons why I am against the Macnaghten Five in the first place.

All the best

I dont think you can attribute his skill at evasion to pure luck. If he was seen, it appears it was prior to a murder, when he had to come out from the shadows to pick up one of his victims,...he was exposed only at that time. Where they go, and how he flees were both private. And considering Vigilance Commitees, the ramped up uniformed and plainclothes policemen, and everyone out at night that Fall were looking at everyone else sideways who was on the street at night alone, or as a couple, ...that was no mean feat.

I think the three women that likely one man did kill, fit the privacy requirements for location, and escape. My suspicion is that the Hanbury St yard was a little dicier than the rest once he got there, and perhaps thats why her wounds are arguably more efficient, abbreviating the time he needed to be stuck there.

Best regards.

[Doctor X]

Someone will inform me, I am sure, should the self-confessed child contribute something of value to the adult conversation.

--J.D.

[jc007]

No, you are not.

Um yeah i am. see i can be childish too.

[Doctor X]

And for the record, I don't believe he 'planned' the attacks. I agree with the FBI (for once) that the murders were impulsive acts and that he carried knives on him anyway for self-protection or otjher reasons (woring tools etc), not necessarily to commit murder. But again, who knows?

I would have to disagree with that. He just so "happens" to encounter a prostitute and "on impulse" murders the prostitute . . . then does this again "on impulse" . . . while "on impulse" refining his technique with each victim?

Meh!

So, J.D., any more inputs or comments regarding the numbers of victims before we draw this psychological discussion even more far off track from the subject of this thread than we already have?

I tend to avoid absolutes.

--J.D.