Motivation?

[Michael W Richards]

Okay, so on 3 of the murders he attacked the uterus directly, on the first attack he went for the lower abdomen with downward thrusts, so probably going for the uterus again. So why? It is exclusively a female organ, was it jealousy? The other idea I had was regarding the murder in Mitre Square. Parts of Cate were throw over the shoulders or moved aside. I think in that case he may have attacked the face first, needing to be up close to see, if the gore was already there he would be kneeling very close. That leads to all sorts of more questions. Why cut the face? Unless it was a sign or a message?

I think in the murders of Polly and Annie that was a primary characteristic...he sought uteri. A partial one in Mitre Square makes that murder another possibility for the same man, but there are other features in this murder that are not seen in prior murders. And most were avoidable to an experienced mutilator...which Annies killer seems to have been,... and most were unnecessary.

I think you struck upon another interesting feature here..the facial cuts. Unnecessary. Avoidable.

The first 2 Canonicals were killed because they were women alone at night, and the actions taken suggest the killer was preoccupied with specific female organs. Now try and fit that around Liz Strides murder, or Mary Kellys. Rhetorical. There is no evidence whatsoever in the cases of Liz Stride and Mary Kelly that the killer sought specific female organs.

[Fisherman]

Why don't you let him answer for himself Fish

I cannot see how I would in any way have obstructed Abby to answer for himself. Nor can I see why I would not be allowed to take part in an exchange out here. I was under the impression that these boards are public...?

You couldn't resist the need to assist him

You want to be his guardian

You are so afraid

And if it bleeds...




The Baron

I could not resist to point out how it is ridiculous to speak of a "silly simplification" when it comes to the cutting the Ripper did. I donīt think it was silly to himself, and it would seem that most of those knowledgeable about things like piquerism agree with me.

I donīt think Abby is in need of a guardian, and if he was, he would have to look elsewhere for such a person.

You, on the other hand, could well do with a guardian. Preferably somebody who can say Sssssch! really loud. A simple enough task but very useful.

Am I afraid? Yes, sometimes I am. But so far, it has never had anything to do with ripperology.

[Fisherman]

That makes me feel, maybe Bury is not the right man, because, if he hates Prostitutes that much, why to marry one of them at first place.



The Baron

When you least expect it! Like a bolt of lightning from a clear blue sky! Bravo!

Then again, I donīt think the Ripper necessarily hated prostitutes - or women, on the whole.

I think he liked them but found them hard to understand.

If that helps?

[Harry D]

I think he liked them but found them hard to understand.

Narrows it down!

[Fisherman]

Narrows it down!

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.

[Abby Normal]

Actually Abby I realy don't have something specific in mind, but if I have to put it somehow:

Great hatred of Prostitutes.

The way he killed them, mutilated them and show them.

Buy the way, eating the Kidney, you can interpret it as Cannibalism, which is possible of course, but there is another more appropriate meaning to it in this case,

hatred!


In history, I've read about something similar, when someone hates someone else very much, and managed to kill him, he may eat his liver or Kidney to satisfy his hatred and deep rancour, hence the From Hell letter.



The Baron

hatred? nah.
more like twisted love.

[Harry D]

Yes, does it not?

I think most of the male population like women but struggle to understand them.

That was the joke there.

[Fisherman]

So I reckoned, Harry!

[John Wheat]

Possible of course John

But let me ask you, if one got a venereal disease, will he blame the girl, or blame himself for contacting her? and if she has such a disease, is he going to eat her Kidney? was bury in such an advanced stage of the disease that he felt his days are finishing and he will carry the revenge on every prositute he can get his hands on?!


I find this whole venereal disease argument not convincing, but who knows,


The Baron

Bury really doesn't strike me as someone who would blame himself for anything. And although he did marry Ellen its important to note the fact that he murdered her too.

[miakaal4]

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.

I agree. The mechanic removes parts to get to the bits he wants, exactly the same here, and the placing of the "bits in the way" was not maniacal or angry. It was practical.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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?