How Fast An Operator Was JtR?

[lynn cates]

assumptions

Hello Amanda. If I may point out . . .

"The Ripper was not a sadist, their suffering did not interest him."

You will notice that you have no fewer than four assumptions here.

1. There was a unique ripper. (definite article)

2. The killer was male. (masculine pronoun)

3. The killer was no sadist. (Littlechild was convinced otherwise)

4. You know the killer's interests.

We all make assumptions--and I may be the biggest duck in the puddle. But, really, are ANY of these definitely ascertained facts?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

important

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"But is being an unfortunate a crucial aspect?"

Perhaps, perhaps not. But notice how many of the claims about "Jack" centre around "victimology." And so one frequently trots out, ". . .she was an unfortunate. . ." to "prove" one's case.

If it's not important, perhaps ALL would agree to omit such discussion in future?

Cheers.
LC

[Amanda Sumner]

In my opinion they were all 'unfortunates' except, possibly, Eddowes.
Elena is right. The Ripper was not a sadist, their suffering did not interest him. I think she means by "knocked out" that he, literally, stopped them in their tracks. The attack was sudden and unexpected and very quick. His real interest was the cutting and mutilations and removing of body parts.
I think people are underestimating the times it took to do these things. I cannot believe, when reading the list of injuries performed on Eddowes, that Jack could have done all that in 6 minutes or so.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn. Good speaking with you after too long a while.

Hello Jason. Thanks.

"Not so sure about the non-unfortunate status of 3 and 4. Not so sure about their unfortunate status either. Just trying to be fair."

Precisely. But NO doubt about Polly and Annie, given their statements.

Cheers.
LC

Okay. But is being an unfortunate a crucial aspect? Isn't availability more accurate?

[lynn cates]

knocked out

Hello Elena. Is there evidence that Liz and Kate were "knocked out"?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

status

Hello Jason. Thanks.

"Not so sure about the non-unfortunate status of 3 and 4. Not so sure about their unfortunate status either. Just trying to be fair."

Precisely. But NO doubt about Polly and Annie, given their statements.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

G'Day Elena

Your not the first to suggest that Jacky may have been exploring the female, that there may have been a degree of morbid curiosity.

The other thing to remember is that experience has shown that serial killers do, in fact, often escalate.

But I'm not going to get into another argument about modern serial killers v those of 125 years ago and what one tells us about the other.

GUT

[Elenahoyos66]

Is it possible at all to say, seeing how the murderer no longer got the same thrill from his previous MO, has therefore changed?

The frequent murders, such as Frances Coles and what not, do not really seem to indicate the same killer though; just some really angry man.

However, "Jack" could possibly have changed his MO and cut up women's bodies. My only concern with that, though, is that what would have been done with the bodies, where would he keep them, how would he not have been detected so, who were the women, where did he pick them up...etc?

So, the torso murderer could have been Jack, but I doubt it.

Keeping a body, cutting it up and distributing it seems to be (as odd as it seems) more twisted to me. Jack didn't seem to be into pain for his victims, he did want to destroy women, but he didn't get off over the overpower - - he almost seemed (as messed up as my idea is) to be "exploring" the female.

Hatred and fear of women; sure. Into their pain and terror? Most likely not. He subdued and knocked them out when he killed them. Maybe not with Kelly, but that was a different setting.

Anyways, like I stated before - - I think he took up from anywhere between 6 - 15; 6 minutes with the first canonical four, 15-20 with Kelly.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn Sir.

Hello (again) CD. Are you asking about the conditions? (I'm trying to read between the lines.) Try this:

1."Polly was an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open but her internal organs were NOT removed."

2. "Annie was an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open and her internal organs were removed."

3. "Liz was NOT an unfortunate. Her abdomen was NOT cut open and her internal organs were NOT removed."

4. "Kate was NOT an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open and her internal organs were removed."

So, am I supposed to see a pattern in all this rot?

Cheers.
LC

Not so sure about the non-unfortunate status of 3 and 4. Not so sure about their unfortunate status either. Just trying to be fair.

[lynn cates]

pattern

Hello (again) CD. Are you asking about the conditions? (I'm trying to read between the lines.) Try this:

1."Polly was an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open but her internal organs were NOT removed."

2. "Annie was an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open and her internal organs were removed."

3. "Liz was NOT an unfortunate. Her abdomen was NOT cut open and her internal organs were NOT removed."

4. "Kate was NOT an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open and her internal organs were removed."

So, am I supposed to see a pattern in all this rot?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

question

Hello CD. What question?

How about, "Lynn, how many unfortunates do you KNOW were killed by other than Jack?"

That would be a nonsense as well.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Mrs. Brown was not an unfortunate. Her abdomen was not cut open and her internal organs were not removed."

Umm, plug in Liz Stride for Mrs. Brown and we'd agree.

Cheers.
LC

Very shifty of you, Lynn. You seem to dodge questions when you want to.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

plug in

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Mrs. Brown was not an unfortunate. Her abdomen was not cut open and her internal organs were not removed."

Umm, plug in Liz Stride for Mrs. Brown and we'd agree.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

answer

Hello Edward.

"Of course, this belief ignores the possibility that one or more of the murders was a one off event, and was not part of a series."

Perfect answer to your own question.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello All –

One problem that I have with the idea that multiple mad men were hacking away in the East End during the same time period is this: We would now be faced with not one, but two (or more) serial killers ending their activities at about the same time. (unlikely?) Nobody knows why the series ended abruptly. The death, incarceration or relocation of the guilty party are all possibilities for a single killer, but two (or more) killers ending their rampage at the same time? I find that rather improbable. The Torso Murders occurred at the same time, but didn’t end until 1889.

Of course, this belief ignores the possibility that one or more of the murders was a one off event, and was not part of a series.

Hi Wickerman - I agree that it is very possible that none of the witnesses saw the Ripper. I believe that any number of others walking the streets actually saw him, but never connected the dots –OR- saw him and never came forward.

Edward

Sorry for being off topic

There is rather convincing evidence Edward that there were at least 2 multiple killer/PM mutilators operating at the very same in the East End in 1888, (some of The Canonical Victims and the Torso killer), and you can also add the Tabram murder as another case that wasnt likely a Ripper's work.

Since we have multiple Torso's, we also have another killer who repeats his actions..like some of the Canonical victims indicate. And since we have no throats to examine on the Torso's who is to say whether those women werent also slit with knives as the murder method.

One last point.....if you asked the Met Police in early summer of 1889 whether Jack the Ripper was still active, they likely would have suggested quite possibly...based on their response to Alice McKenzies murder.

Cheers