Motivation?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[c.d.]

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

c.d.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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

4 victims. Cryptic messages in the GSG. Rituals.

Makes Chuck seem the sensible option.

[Fisherman]

4 victims. Cryptic messages in the GSG. Rituals.

Makes Chuck seem the sensible option.

At least a round dozen victims (including Stride), no message whatsoever in the GSG and perhaps more of a hangup than a traditionally ritualistic behaviour. That also makes Chuck a sensible option.

Heīs flexible, our carman, donīt ya know.

Nah, mr Bundy, Iīm simply curious about what it is miakaal4 has in mind. That does not mean that I will invest in it, once I find out.

[Wickerman]

...... Druitt was probably gay and thus unlikely to murder females and also would Jack really commit suicide?

The "probably Gay" is based on what?
There were several girls at the boys school, servants & kitchen staff.
I'm not, nor ever have been, convinced it was a suicide.

[Abby Normal]

The "probably Gay" is based on what?
There were several girls at the boys school, servants & kitchen staff.
I'm not, nor ever have been, convinced it was a suicide.

who? druitt didnt commit suicide?

[c.d.]

Any "incident" at the school would not necessarily had to have been of a sexual nature. He simply might have had occasions where he showed mental instability or excessive emotions.

c.d.