It's 3rd September 1888 what should the Police have been doing?

[Harry D]

Explain how that Mary Kellys murder doesnt look like a domestic murder? She is in her home, in her bed, undressed, in the middle of the night, and her killer didnt break in so he is almost certainly there with her permission. He may well be the man she was in a love triangle with, no-one has identified the other "Joe" yet. You are assuming that very few people cut up other people, well, I can name a bunch of cases where a man kills his wife/lover and then chops her up. He didnt get into the murder desiring to chop up anyone, in most cases its to dispose of the parts later. Or to disguise the manner in which she was killed. In this case however the killer is fortunate, he doesnt have to dispose of the body at all, he just has to chop her up and leave her there so that everyone, just like you, will believe the mad Ripper man killed her. The previous kills, with widely published details, and the fact that no-one had been caught created that opportunity. I think Marys killer just took what was given to him.

In November 1993, in the Bisset home in Plumstead, Napper stabbed 27-year-old Samantha Bisset in her neck and chest, killing her, and then sexually assaulted[6] and smothered her four-year-old daughter, Jazmine Jemima Bisset. In her sitting room, Napper mutilated Samantha's body, taking away parts of her body as a trophy. The crime scene was reportedly so grisly that the police photographer assigned to the case was forced to take two years' leave after witnessing it.

Robert Napper, British serial killer. His victims were complete strangers to him.

[Abby Normal]

In November 1993, in the Bisset home in Plumstead, Napper stabbed 27-year-old Samantha Bisset in her neck and chest, killing her, and then sexually assaulted[6] and smothered her four-year-old daughter, Jazmine Jemima Bisset. In her sitting room, Napper mutilated Samantha's body, taking away parts of her body as a trophy. The crime scene was reportedly so grisly that the police photographer assigned to the case was forced to take two years' leave after witnessing it.

Robert Napper, British serial killer. His victims were complete strangers to him.

exactly Harry
MR thinks that serial killers are robots who never deviate from a set written in stone MO, regardless of there psychological state, circumstances and or escalation/evolution.

[Michael W Richards]

exactly Harry
MR thinks that serial killers are robots who never deviate from a set written in stone MO, regardless of there psychological state, circumstances and or escalation/evolution.

I don't mind you summarizing my opinions based on my posts, but I never said anything like that. I have said that the first 2 Canonicals are a match in every conceivable way comparatively, and they match none of the others,...comparatively. I know it must be fascinating imagining a continually morphing killer....(without any real external pressures evident,....they had no real idea who was doing this, as you recall, so he didn't need to change anything he did), but the reality is that when you have virtually identical events happening within 2 weeks, and unlike events happening before that Fall, during that Fall, and after that Fall, there is a high degree of certainty you are talking about different killers, not one magically morphing one that so many seem to relish.

[Michael W Richards]

In November 1993, in the Bisset home in Plumstead, Napper stabbed 27-year-old Samantha Bisset in her neck and chest, killing her, and then sexually assaulted[6] and smothered her four-year-old daughter, Jazmine Jemima Bisset. In her sitting room, Napper mutilated Samantha's body, taking away parts of her body as a trophy. The crime scene was reportedly so grisly that the police photographer assigned to the case was forced to take two years' leave after witnessing it.

Robert Napper, British serial killer. His victims were complete strangers to him.

Im sure other "serial" cases are also fascinating, and when we know that the Ripper murders were a series of perhaps 5, we should review that material. Until that time, and after 130 plus years, we don't have that proof, so all the serial killer comparisons can be left on the shelf. Serial killing is more than 2, so I agree that Polly and Annie fell victim to a serial murderer. Those 2 can be married easily. None of the other match the MO, signature and circumstantial evidence seen in the first 2....with the hesitant exception of Kate.

There are experts here who Ive spoken with on the boards and privately who agree heartily with me, but prefer not to get into the silly little arguments that ensue if they addressed the issue head on. They prefer to keep that opinion to themselves. But you ask any serious researcher how many murders can be almost certainly tagged to one man, and you get 2, maybe 3, very often.

[John Wheat]

I believe a killer with a demonstrated preference for killing strangers outdoors is contrasted by the Kelly murder, not exemplified.

Well I think your wrong. It just looks like Jack got the opportunity to kill indoors. Further more I really don't see Mary Kelly's murderer going that far on a first kill.

[John Wheat]

Im sure other "serial" cases are also fascinating, and when we know that the Ripper murders were a series of perhaps 5, we should review that material. Until that time, and after 130 plus years, we don't have that proof, so all the serial killer comparisons can be left on the shelf. Serial killing is more than 2, so I agree that Polly and Annie fell victim to a serial murderer. Those 2 can be married easily. None of the other match the MO, signature and circumstantial evidence seen in the first 2....with the hesitant exception of Kate.

There are experts here who Ive spoken with on the boards and privately who agree heartily with me, but prefer not to get into the silly little arguments that ensue if they addressed the issue head on. They prefer to keep that opinion to themselves. But you ask any serious researcher how many murders can be almost certainly tagged to one man, and you get 2, maybe 3, very often.

Just who are all these serious researchers?

[Michael W Richards]

Well I think your wrong. It just looks like Jack got the opportunity to kill indoors. Further more I really don't see Mary Kelly's murderer going that far on a first kill.

I think based on what I said its impossible to believe that would be a response. Lets try again...demonstrated..(because of 4 previous assumed murders all done outdoors)...preference, …(see previous), …which means that Marys murder is a departure, (contrast)...not a re-affirmation we are dealing with the same man.

As for what experts align with that opinion I gave, I can only offer you one name since I asked him directly on a forum thread here and its searchable...Stewart Evans. I asked him on a personal level how many victims he would group with Jack the Ripper, and he felt 2 perhaps 3 was a realistic number. If he is reading this I hope he understands my disclosure, but again, its a matter of record here.

Anyone with any common sense doesn't just match round pegs with square holes just because its expedient and doesn't require an understanding of all the variables.

[Abby Normal]

I think based on what I said its impossible to believe that would be a response. Lets try again...demonstrated..(because of 4 previous assumed murders all done outdoors)...preference, …(see previous), …which means that Marys murder is a departure, (contrast)...not a re-affirmation we are dealing with the same man.

As for what experts align with that opinion I gave, I can only offer you one name since I asked him directly on a forum thread here and its searchable...Stewart Evans. I asked him on a personal level how many victims he would group with Jack the Ripper, and he felt 2 perhaps 3 was a realistic number. If he is reading this I hope he understands my disclosure, but again, its a matter of record here.

Anyone with any common sense doesn't just match round pegs with square holes just because its expedient and doesn't require an understanding of all the variables.

I think if your going to speak for SE you could at least provide a link to the thread he said this. and to be honest im not sure that he gets into that sort of debate.

[Lipsky]

I think if your going to speak for SE you could at least provide a link to the thread he said this. and to be honest im not sure that he gets into that sort of debate.

Will we witness another angry comeback?

[John Wheat]

I think based on what I said its impossible to believe that would be a response. Lets try again...demonstrated..(because of 4 previous assumed murders all done outdoors)...preference, …(see previous), …which means that Marys murder is a departure, (contrast)...not a re-affirmation we are dealing with the same man.

As for what experts align with that opinion I gave, I can only offer you one name since I asked him directly on a forum thread here and its searchable...Stewart Evans. I asked him on a personal level how many victims he would group with Jack the Ripper, and he felt 2 perhaps 3 was a realistic number. If he is reading this I hope he understands my disclosure, but again, its a matter of record here.

Anyone with any common sense doesn't just match round pegs with square holes just because its expedient and doesn't require an understanding of all the variables.

One serious researcher is not several. So your original claim looks like a lie. Anyone with any common sense would know Jack just had the opportunity to murder indoors with Mary Kelly. You seem to believe that all of a sudden there were several mutilating knife wielding lunatics in a small area of London at the same time. Which to me seems nieve at best.

[Michael W Richards]

The fact that someone was making Torsos before and after that Fall seems to indicate that at the very least 2 madmen were responsible for murders in London, so John I would think you wear the naivete banner more accurately than myself. Mary Kelly was killed indoors by someone she knew, Polly and Annie were killed outdoors by a stranger, how that is a natural grouping has always been beyond me. But youre certainly not the first, nor will you be the last. As to whom has shared their opinions with me on how many victims can be logically assembled under this Jacky fellow, I cited only Stewarts response because I asked him a direct question on a public forum and he answered it. Any discussions I have had privately with him, or anyone else, I have no interest in sharing with you. Suffice to say over the 10 plus years here Ive had the opportunity to ask opinions of many members, privately and publicly, and youll just have to accept that or not. It makes no difference to me.

As to your question Abby, I believe we were on a thread about Kate Eddowes, which for me personally, is the only possible 3 victim. I don't recall the thread name, sorry. I also didn't ask Stewart to clarify which three he felt could be grouped, its doesn't have to be the same 3 I personally believe can be "Canonical", for all I know he might have included Kelly or another Unsolved murder victim. I don't.

And John, that you "

don't see Mary Kelly's murderer going that far on a first kill" isn't an opinion I share, and I don't assume that Marys killer hadn't killed before either. Or after. Who knows. As Ive said so many times Marys killer had the luxury of being able to disappear and instead leave Jacks calling card by the simple virtue that all the gruesome details of the priors were public knowledge, and repeating some of those acts meant that Jack would be the presumed culprit...whoever that was. The police didn't seem interested that everyone just jumped to that conclusion, probably allowed them to investigate other possibilities without the press hounding them anymore than they already were.

[Michael W Richards]

One serious researcher is not several. So your original claim looks like a lie. Anyone with any common sense would know Jack just had the opportunity to murder indoors with Mary Kelly. You seem to believe that all of a sudden there were several mutilating knife wielding lunatics in a small area of London at the same time. Which to me seems nieve at best.

Call me a liar again and weve spoken for the last time.

[John Wheat]

Call me a liar again and weve spoken for the last time.

I didn't call you a liar. I said that what you said looked like a lie as you didn't back up your original statement. There is a suttle difference. As for the rest of your post I guess we differ in opinion.

[JeffHamm]

I don't see anything different with respect to Mary Kelly's murder and the other victims, other than the fact she had a room to go to. It appears the other victims were approached or approached JtR, who then went with them posing as a client. So he went where they took him. Mary Kelly took him to her room. Being indoors is a reflection of the particular victim, not a change in "preference" by JtR to choose outdoor locations. But I know a lot of people view that change as more important, I just think there's a far simpler explanation for it.

- Jeff

[John Wheat]

I don't see anything different with respect to Mary Kelly's murder and the other victims, other than the fact she had a room to go to. It appears the other victims were approached or approached JtR, who then went with them posing as a client. So he went where they took him. Mary Kelly took him to her room. Being indoors is a reflection of the particular victim, not a change in "preference" by JtR to choose outdoor locations. But I know a lot of people view that change as more important, I just think there's a far simpler explanation for it.

- Jeff

I totally agree with that Jeff.