Motivation?

[Fisherman]

I have a sort of throry I'm putting together. You see I think the intention was always going to be 4 victims, not 5. He had to kill Eddowes because he failed in his intentions when disturbed killing Stride. If he was a woman hater or just mad, the killing of Stride probably would have been enough. But no, he had a ritual that had to be perform that night, on that date. I do have some explanation for believing this, but need time to re-examine.

Then take your time. Just donīt forget to return and tell us what came of it!

[John Wheat]

great question wick! well if it was bury, druitt or chapman we know why. for an unsub it could be any number of reasons-died, incarcerated, moved away.

There are major problems with both Druitt and Chapman of course though. Druitt was probably gay and thus unlikely to murder females and also would Jack really commit suicide? And with Chapman why the massive change to poisoning?

Cheers John

[miakaal4]

I have a sort of throry I'm putting together. You see I think the intention was always going to be 4 victims, not 5. He had to kill Eddowes because he failed in his intentions when disturbed killing Stride. If he was a woman hater or just mad, the killing of Stride probably would have been enough. But no, he had a ritual that had to be perform that night, on that date. I do have some explanation for believing this, but need time to re-examine.

[Fisherman]

I think you could also add fear of being caught and hanged.

c.d.

Indeed. DeAngeloīs coming to a halt coincides with when news spread about the DNA technique, and it may be that this was what made him stop. It may well be that what applies is a mixture of many factors.

[Fisherman]

You may be right but, if he loved what he was doing, how do we justify him stopping?

I am perfectly sure that the Original Night Stalker, Joseph James DeAngelo, was quite smitten with what he did. Of course, he destroyed the bodies of his victims, and so he differed from the Ripper in that sense. Bashing heads in with a piece of log or a length of led pipe is not the subtlest way of going aboout things. But I donīt think he hated what he did - he liked doing it. And he stopped.

Whether the Ripper stopped is another matter. I am quite convinced that he went on to killer Liz Jackson and the Pinchin Street woman in 1889, and I donīt rule out that he killed other after that point in time.

Basically, I think that many serial killers stop when the libido tapers off. To what extent this applied to the Ripper is of course an open question.

[c.d.]

I think you could also add fear of being caught and hanged.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

You may be right but, if he loved what he was doing, how do we justify him stopping?

great question wick! well if it was bury, druitt or chapman we know why. for an unsub it could be any number of reasons-died, incarcerated, moved away.

[Wickerman]

i simply see a man who loves cutting up women and in many cases does it with a purpose, carefully and rather skillfully. perhaps curiosity involved. taking away organs could indicate cannabalism and sexual nature (masterbating with them?) but at least wanting to prolong the pleasure of the mutilations.

You may be right but, if he loved what he was doing, how do we justify him stopping?

[Abby Normal]

hi Abby!

I think what fish was getting at was that the taking apart couldn't have been an act of hate because there was an element of precision involved in certain areas of the mutilation.

I wanted to say "hold on a minute," - just because there is an understanding of butchery and anatomy involved, and even because a hateful killer can be whimsical, we can't definitively declare that a lack of hate is happening here.

I brought up the Porsche example. It's no longer a Porsche if you come back to the mechanic after asking to get it fixed and you see it strewn out like a ripper victim with some vital bits missing.

I suppose what I am also advocating for is the idea that yes if Jack the Ripper hated the idea of what made a woman a woman, and Eddowes' eyes, or MJK's breasts were particularly alluring by his own measurement, then yes these crimes could well have been an act of hate.

Please forgive my traditionalist advocacy.

hi takod
thanks for clarifying....i dont neccessarily agree but i see your point.

i simply see a man who loves cutting up women and in many cases does it with a purpose, carefully and rather skillfully. perhaps curiosity involved. taking away organs could indicate cannabalism and sexual nature (masterbating with them?) but at least wanting to prolong the pleasure of the mutilations.

could be some anger/ hate/ jeoulosy involved, i just dont see obvious and overt evidence. historically speaking i dont find that prostitute/ women targeting serial killers, and especially post mortem types, that hatred is the main motivation. more like i said... a twisted love. a desire to possess amd to do with the body what one wants, however sick. think gein, kemper, dahmer.

sorry for some of the graphic nature of this post.

[Fisherman]

hi Abby!

I think what fish was getting at was that the taking apart couldn't have been an act of hate because there was an element of precision involved in certain areas of the mutilation.

Nope. I was getting at how this is SUGGESTED by the evidence, not that we can definitively rule out the element of hatred. I try to keep an open mind on most things.

I wanted to say "hold on a minute," - just because there is an understanding of butchery and anatomy involved, and even because a hateful killer can be whimsical, we can't definitively declare that a lack of hate is happening here.

True, therefore.

I brought up the Porsche example. It's no longer a Porsche if you come back to the mechanic after asking to get it fixed and you see it strewn out like a ripper victim with some vital bits missing.

But I did not say that, did I? I said that the parts were neatly lined up on the garage floor. I am envisaging a careful disassembly of the car, not a destruction of it. One, if you like, that involves no hatred.

I suppose what I am also advocating for is the idea that yes if Jack the Ripper hated the idea of what made a woman a woman, and Eddowes' eyes, or MJK's breasts were particularly alluring by his own measurement, then yes these crimes could well have been an act of hate.

And I am allowing for the possibility, although I am saying that people who want to destroy other people are not likely to do it with an element of great care involved. I am saying that if he hated Kelly and Eddowes, then the eyes would likely be damaged. I am saying that if he hated Kelly, then he would not neatly take out the organs unharmed and place them beside her and as a pillow under her head. I am saying that stretching out the colon section parallel to the corpse of Eddowes seems like nothing involving hatred in my eyes. It looks a lot more like care and precision.

Please forgive my traditionalist advocacy.

It is your prerogative, Takod. No need for asking forgiveness. I wonīt do so for rejecting it either.

[Fisherman]

But here, you will learn to see how finding a body and informing the police, is a sign of guilt.


The Baron

I guess that depends on who is making the call. Personally, I have never seen any of these items as signs of guilt. Of course, people out here are sometomes eager to ascribe these kinds of moronic misjudgments to me, but thatīs another matter.

I of course regard Charles Lechmere as the probale Ripper, but that is NOT on account of his finding a dead body. It is on account of having many red flags pointing in his direction COMBINED WITH having a proven presence alone with the victim at a remove in time when she was still bleeding from the wound in her neck.

And to be frank, I am not the only person to take interest in such matters. Generally, the police are of the exact same sentiment.

What a loathsome affair you are turning peoples honest intentions into, Baron. Why is that? It would benefit the joint efforts out here if we were able to abstain from such antics. Plus, of course, it would save valuable space if you did not reoccuringly post this kind of horse manure.

Now, just to be clear on things: Can you see what kind of connection I make between Lechmreīs presence at the Nichols murder site and his potential guilt? And do you understand that it is not a question of simply having stumbled over the body?

[The Baron]

hi Abby!

I think what fish was getting at was that the taking apart couldn't have been an act of hate because there was an element of precision involved in certain areas of the mutilation.

I wanted to say "hold on a minute," - just because there is an understanding of butchery and anatomy involved, and even because a hateful killer can be whimsical, we can't definitively declare that a lack of hate is happening here.

I brought up the Porsche example. It's no longer a Porsche if you come back to the mechanic after asking to get it fixed and you see it strewn out like a ripper victim with some vital bits missing.

I suppose what I am also advocating for is the idea that yes if Jack the Ripper hated the idea of what made a woman a woman, and Eddowes' eyes, or MJK's breasts were particularly alluring by his own measurement, then yes these crimes could well have been an act of hate.

Please forgive my traditionalist advocacy.

Your post is logical.

But here, you will learn to see how finding a body and informing the police, is a sign of guilt.

And butchering a woman is a sign of love.

And errors everywhere in a scrapbook, are signs of genuinity


Welcome aboard!



The Baron

[Takod]

hi takod
not sure what your getting at here. please explain a bit more simply. i think what fish was getting at and what i also, is that the ripper enjoyed "taking apart" women, cutting up women. that much is obvious no?

hi Abby!

I think what fish was getting at was that the taking apart couldn't have been an act of hate because there was an element of precision involved in certain areas of the mutilation.

I wanted to say "hold on a minute," - just because there is an understanding of butchery and anatomy involved, and even because a hateful killer can be whimsical, we can't definitively declare that a lack of hate is happening here.

I brought up the Porsche example. It's no longer a Porsche if you come back to the mechanic after asking to get it fixed and you see it strewn out like a ripper victim with some vital bits missing.

I suppose what I am also advocating for is the idea that yes if Jack the Ripper hated the idea of what made a woman a woman, and Eddowes' eyes, or MJK's breasts were particularly alluring by his own measurement, then yes these crimes could well have been an act of hate.

Please forgive my traditionalist advocacy.

[Abby Normal]

Mhm, I'm not so sure.

If you were to come back to the mechanic and find your Porsche in the state of any one of the victims you would have much chagrin, you might even go so far as to say that they have destroyed your car.

It is not exactly rocket science to do all of the things that you have said, for example if you're butchering a chicken or such the bits and pieces do what you would expect them to do and come off where you'd expect them to come off. It would still fit in with a whimsical killer, who on one night fancied some eye slitting and on the other fancied some breast circling.

Disassembly in this case would be a hell of a lot easier than putting it all back together for some kind of odd Frankenstein's Porsche.

I am not denying that the Ripper wanted certain organs. What I do want to cast doubt upon is the idea that the postmortem fantasy ended within the presence of the victim. If we look at MJK he certainly scratched all of the paintwork.

We can know for sure not the deranged particulars of a man willing to commit such acts.

hi takod
not sure what your getting at here. please explain a bit more simply. i think what fish was getting at and what i also, is that the ripper enjoyed "taking apart" women, cutting up women. that much is obvious no?

[Takod]

Yes, does it not?

Well, maybe it is not the decisive clue, I admit that. But I think it is a vital one nevertheless. All this talk about how the Ripper must have hated women/prostitutes is getting a bit tedious. If he had actually been about destroying bodies, it would have been a very good point, but a man who seemingly uses millimeter precision to avoid to harm the eyes? A man who extracts all the organs from inside a woman without shredding any of them? A man who uses nice circular cuts to take off the breasts? Who cuts a length of colon and neatly stretches it out parallel to the body of the woman it came from?

When I see a mechanic taking a Porsche apart in little bits, distributing them over the garage floor, I donīt assume he does so on account of hating sports cars.

Mhm, I'm not so sure.

If you were to come back to the mechanic and find your Porsche in the state of any one of the victims you would have much chagrin, you might even go so far as to say that they have destroyed your car.

It is not exactly rocket science to do all of the things that you have said, for example if you're butchering a chicken or such the bits and pieces do what you would expect them to do and come off where you'd expect them to come off. It would still fit in with a whimsical killer, who on one night fancied some eye slitting and on the other fancied some breast circling.

Disassembly in this case would be a hell of a lot easier than putting it all back together for some kind of odd Frankenstein's Porsche.

I am not denying that the Ripper wanted certain organs. What I do want to cast doubt upon is the idea that the postmortem fantasy ended within the presence of the victim. If we look at MJK he certainly scratched all of the paintwork.

We can know for sure not the deranged particulars of a man willing to commit such acts.