Did Jack kill more than three?

[perrymason]

I believe my 3rd point to Frank addresses your comments Sam.

As I said, all we know is what he did do, and that he acted voluntarily in order to do it. Nothing was forced upon him at all. He had ample choices still grazing the streets, and nothing at all in any prior shows he might have preferred other surroundings.

Wouldnt be a public spectacle without the public, would it?

Cheers Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

I believe my 3rd point to Frank addresses your comments Sam.

It doesn't quite - or, if it does, it would appear to contradict to a large extent your earlier assertion that there was no evidence that Jack was under time-pressure, or similar constraints.

As I said, all we know is what he did do, and that he acted voluntarily in order to do it.

If I've read this correctly, Mike, what you're saying is that he deliberately chose (or let himself to be led into) risky situations in order to feed a perceived need to eviscerate women?

Wouldnt be a public spectacle without the public, would it?

Well, they weren't actually watching...

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

Point 3 suggested that the killer, by initiating an attack at all, agreed to his environment and his perceived time alone with a victim. He could have kept his knife in his pocket if it looked like he wouldn't be satisfied with either the place, the victim, or the time he might have. Unless you're suggesting he couldn't control himself...which really, most likely, only applies to Mary Janes killer, and the escapes that go undetected smell of some forethought.

Sam...."If I've read this correctly, Mike, what you're saying is that he deliberately chose (or let himself to be led into) risky situations in order to feed a perceived need to eviscerate women"

Have we now determined what his perceived need is in all 5 cases? I only see 2 women where cuts are seemingly the sole objective, and one that the only objective was a single cut...and I see 2 that had abdominal mutilations and organ theft as objectives. I never said, no would I, that Jack the Ripper is defined by a perceived desire to eviscerate. These are still 5 unsolved murders of individual women....not some heap of bodies on a single killers pile.

Now Marys Janes killer, sure.

Dont all the serial killer students like yourself remind us all that there are many kinds of killers, including those that plan, that only make a move when they feel its right...and have objectives to achieve?

I see no reason to toss that kind of killer out in all these 5 cases, only in some.

And on the issue of leading or being led, if you know the area where you going to end up, then who cares who leads.

Best regards Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Unless you're suggesting he couldn't control himself...which really, most likely, only applies to Mary Janes killer

That in itself is debatable, but even so the vicious "Zorro-job" he did on Kate's features seems not to have been a model of restraint.

and the escapes that go undetected smell of some forethought.

At least one escape, possibly more, smelt of something far worse.

Have we now determined what his perceived need is in all cases?

We can all perceive various needs, but whether our perceptions reflect Jack's needs is something we can never know. For example, it is impossible to prove that Jack had a need for abdominal organs only, or that his need for evisceration overrode a more basic need to (for example) kill someone and make a mess of their body.

[perrymason]

"....Well, they weren't actually watching"...

But we both know some would have given the chance, this wasn't Bel Air, where the noise of murders causes one to shut their windows and turn the Central Air on.

I think the killer knew, and maybe liked, the public spectacle aspect...made his small little killings of interest to thousands.

If all the victims had been found indoors, with only the wounds they have, would he be JACK the RIPPER today...or jack the ripper?


Cheers Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

If all the victims had been found indoors, with only the wounds they have, would he be JACK the RIPPER today...or jack the ripper?

If killing indoors meant the level of destruction we saw perpetrated on Kelly, my guess is the former - although you'd need to have selected a much bigger font.

[perrymason]

Then its fortunate we have just one that is at that level of carnage. Odd though... that as he moved indoors, finally having the opportunity as you and others suggest,..... he stops too.

Opps, I just mentioned the Druitt rationale.

I personally see no reason to think that Polly's, Annie's, Kate's or even Liz's killer left the scene unsatisfied. Mary Janes though may have left in a daze. To imagine that someone might become consciously self-aware while doing that kind of thing is a frightening thought.

Maybe he drooled.....but I dont see why a few of the victims killer did. Seemed a little clinical actually.

Ciao for the day Sam.

[Doctor X]

Yes, Doc - just as you remain free to understand that I have never spoken for such an absence. But that won´t sink in, will it?

Recognizing the fatal flaw in your models and perceiving your rising petulance?

Methinks it sinks in.

I will give it one further try:

If-the-jet-of-blood-found-its-way-to-the patch-where-her-neck-ended-up-you-will-have-that-precious-spray-of-yours-UNDER-the-pool-of-blood-that-subsequentially-covered-it.

Sorry, only happens if she is in left lateral decubitus.

Here, let me put it in a way you might understand:

Sorry,-only-happens-if-she-is-in-left-lateral-decubitus.

Even the video you laud makes this clear. What position is the animal in? Is it:

• A. One the Ground
  B. Not on the Ground

Goes on a fair bit in circles, failing to account for the lack of spray.

"Reality is that which when you cease to believe in it will not go away."

--Philip K. Dick

--J. "I Have Seen Things!" D.

[Sam Flynn]

Then its fortunate we just one that is at that level of carnage. Odd though... that as he moved indoors, finally having the opportunity as you and others suggest,..... yet he stops too.

We'd still have to explain why he stopped at Eddowes. If, indeed, he stopped at Kelly.

I personally see no reason to think that Polly's, Annie's, Kate's or even Liz's killer left the scene unsatisfied.

To do so we'd need to know not only his motives, but also his innermost thoughts at the time.

I'll say this for you, Mike - you sure are ambitious

[Fisherman]

Doctor X writes:

"Recognizing the fatal flaw in your models...?"

Ehrm...no.

One of the troubles here is that I try to keep an open mind, but you will not do that, no matter what.

"only happens if she is in left lateral decubitus" is what you keep writing, but the fact of the matter is that if she WAS cut falling, she could have been cut at any height over the ground. And I think that even you (well...) have to admit that if she was cut one centimeter above the ground, she was actually cut falling. But then again, she would not be in "left lateral decubitus" at that stage, meaning - according to your model and assurances - that we would find a clear spray pattern on the ground. Whereas such a pattern need not be there, had she been cut ten millimeters closer to the ground. Rocket science, Doc, rocket science!

Would you hold it very much against me if I pointed out to you that your assurance is plain stupid, given these circumstances?

Now, please don´t tell me that it would be improbable to get cut one centimetre over the ground - it does not apply in the discussion. She could have been cut TWO centimetres over the ground, or a decimetre for that matter - the chances that the famed Doctor X spray would not be there to see afterwards are still very obvious.

Finally, you ask me whether the cow that has it´s throat cut is on the ground or not in Mitch´s Kosher movie.

I will tell you one thing - it is not in "left lateral decubitus", whichever way you look upon it.

Your criticism, though - that is flat on the ground by now. And that´s fine by me - it is where it belongs.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

Ok, you got a laugh from me on the ambition line. I do realize that at times I take big bites. Its not because I think every tangent can be fruitful as much as it is knowing conventional wisdom hasn't really answered some crucial questions satisfactorily.

What do I mean when I say theres no evidence he wasn't content with working outdoors, or the women he gets to pick from, the locations he must be in, and the probable time he will have there?

Aside from the exception, being the single indoor victim, If the Canon is accurate, it is only outdoors that he works, all 4 times prior to an indoor kill. And he is never caught lingering over a corpse trying to squeeze in more mutilations.

One thing Ive looked for is something to support the notion that he desired change. Well, his locations get progressively more private and darker from Mary Ann on, but he remains outdoors. If one were to say the sloppy cuts and stabs were his frustration being worked out due to his inability to go as far as his dreams took him, then I would expect Mary Jane to be precise cuts, ones he would be careful making, because each one gets him that much closer to being finished...and he doesnt want to rush. Now that he has that venue...does Mary Jane appear as if someone was coveting each cut, taking time and care? Of course not. She was slashed, sliced, scooped and peeled.

As I said, Im not speculating on his desires or unknown callings as it were.....Im just saying that in terms of evidence to support a conjecture that the killer wanted, needed, desired or insisted on an indoor venue prior to the death of Mary Jane, there is none...it doesnt exist.

And the only evidence we have that a single man killed the first 4 then moved indoors to kill Mary is that many investigators thought he did.

I think Mary Janes death screwed everyones perceptions of what actually had been transpiring that Fall, and turned the murders in to a circus starring a fictional character.

For example...we know there is at least one story that was not denied by parties when asked directly about the matter, that acknowledged being approached by a man seeking to buy uteri, to accompany research papers he was to send to America on that organ......(like perhaps before approaching them he had begun or even finished his research....very probably using uterus specimens.)

So its quite possibly in London at that time such a man still had goals to obtain specimens......offering as you know, 20 pounds for a sample....as youve informed me....approx the equivalent of 1100-1200 pounds today.

In the Calcutta of The United Kingdom, where many decent women are forced to sell themselves to survive, whole families are sharing a single room, people are dying of starvation or worse.........why is a mad killer of all 5 without objectives more sensible than some kills for profit?

Best regards Sam, as always.

[Fisherman]

Hi Michael!

Even though it is easy to recognize the fact that there may have been large money involved in organ trading, I think that there is so much pointing away from it in the Ripper case that we need not get too interested in the stuff.

To begin with, if he was after the uteri, to sell them, why would he:

-leave Kellys uterus behing in Miller´s court?
-cut Eddowes face; no uterus there!
-settle for outdoor venues, ensuring very little time to work on the victims, and accepting immense risks?
-make such a hash of the job, coming up with only one undamaged uterus in five tries?
-cut all the way up to the breast bone?

There are too many elements around pointing away from the Ripper ripping to gain tradeable items to make it viable, I feel.

The best,
Fisherman

[Doctor X]

Ehrm...no.

Then demonstrate the spray.

You cannot.

One of the troubles here is that I try to keep an open mind, but you will not do that, no matter what.

Apparently, you allow any garbage to enter yours.

Demonstrate why there was no spray pattern.

Goes on a fair bit failing to do that.

And that is rather that.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[JSchmidt]

What still puzzles me with the out to buy stuff scenario is that contacting an unscrupulous mortician or coroner might have gotten him the specimens he sought way easier. And I can't think of any reason that this should not have worked.
And as Fisherman said, why would he want to make such a hideous mess out of it? Can see no sense in that.

[Doctor X]

What still puzzles me with the out to buy stuff scenario is that contacting an unscrupulous mortician or coroner might have gotten him the specimens he sought way easier.

Yup.

And as Fisherman said, why would he want to make such a hideous mess out of it? Can see no sense in that.

Yup.

Why I do not buy that explanation.

--J.D.