How Fast An Operator Was JtR?

[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.

[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

[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

[lynn cates]

knocked out

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

Cheers.
LC

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[Amanda Sumner]

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

Interesting points Lynn, but we can be certain of some things, surely?

1. The fact that women were being attacked during the autumn of 1888, having their throats cut and suffering from varying degrees of abdominal injuries and evisceration, and in three cases body parts were removed, I think that we can be fairly certain that this was the work of one individual. The fact that the murders stopped as suddenly as they started points to that, in my opinion.

2. The physical strength needed to bring down these women by cutting their throats points to the perpetrator being a male. These women were seen with males and, although these individuals may not have been the Ripper, the fact that these women sought male company, and none were seen with another woman, does point to it being a male that did the attacks. Most serious offences against women are done by men, so, yes. I think we can safely assume these murders were done by a male. Although, I agree with you, we cannot establish that as fact.

3. All the injuries were done after life was extinct apart from the initial throat cut so the suffering of the victims was not the objective. These were not sadistic murders. However, I agree that we do not know if this individual was sadistic in other areas in his life, so you have a valid point there.

4.Well, we know the killer's interest in these murders and that was the exploration and destruction of their internal body parts. What other interests he may have had in life, we do not know, or ever likely to find out.

Amanda

[Wickerman]

Something else that may be added to the list is the means & the reason why the killer thought it necessary to render them unconscious.
At this point we are unable to distinguish between suffocation and strangulation, and although there is evidence in support of this being applied in some cases, it is by no means proven in every case.

The question then may be posed, "...why does a man with a knife choose to strangle his victim?"
Strangulation takes time & effort, and depending on the build & fortitude of the victim, the killer could be in for a noisy & strenuous exchange compromising the time and privacy he needs to complete his task.

This apparently risky behaviour suggests to me that the need and the means by which he rendered them unconscious was important to him, that watching their life slip away slowly while under his firm grasp was part of the 'thrill'.

Jack may have been first and foremost a strangler, the mutilations fulfilling some other desire.

[Amanda Sumner]

Jack may have been first and foremost a strangler, the mutilations fulfilling some other desire.
__________________

But is there real evidence of strangulation?
Grabbing by the neck prior to cutting the throat may have caused some bruising but a deep cut to the throat may well sever, or partly sever, the windpipe so cause symptoms of asphyxiation by the sudden lack of oxygen, and of course the blood on its own would have restricted air flow and cause choking.
I'm probably showing my ignorance here but I've never thought of the Ripper as first and foremost a strangler.

To try and get back on thread, I can't see that strangulation is the fastest way to kill one's victim, precious time would have been lost rendering them lifeless, and the Ripper just did not have that time.

[Sam Flynn]

"Interestingly - and this has only just occurred to me - perhaps what he achieved in such a short time span in Mitre Square might tell us something about the previous murders. Specifically, the time he had available to "finish the job" on those occasions, and what might have prompted him to stop when he did."

So you are of opinion that the assailant stopped when he saw Harvey's light in Church Passage?

Or heard him. Something like that, Lynn.

[lynn cates]

a few points

Hello Amanda. Thanks.

"1. The fact that women were being attacked during the autumn of 1888, having their throats cut and suffering from varying degrees of abdominal injuries and evisceration, and in three cases body parts were removed, I think that we can be fairly certain that this was the work of one individual."

Whence the certainty? I find none.

"The fact that the murders stopped as suddenly as they started points to that, in my opinion."

This one eludes me.

"2. The physical strength needed to bring down these women by cutting their throats points to the perpetrator being a male. These women were seen with males and, although these individuals may not have been the Ripper, the fact that these women sought male company, and none were seen with another woman, does point to it being a male that did the attacks."

Were Polly or Annie seen with males?

"Most serious offences against women are done by men, so, yes. I think we can safely assume these murders were done by a male. Although, I agree with you, we cannot establish that as fact."

Then we agree. I think the perpetrators were male.

"3. All the injuries were done after life was extinct apart from the initial throat cut so the suffering of the victims was not the objective. These were not sadistic murders. However, I agree that we do not know if this individual was sadistic in other areas in his life, so you have a valid point there."

Very well.

"4.Well, we know the killer's interest in these murders and that was the exploration and destruction of their internal body parts."

How on earth could we know that?

"What other interests he may have had in life, we do not know, or ever likely to find out."

Agreed again.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

strangler

Hello Jon.

"At this point we are unable to distinguish between suffocation and strangulation, and although there is evidence in support of this being applied in some cases, it is by no means proven in every case."

Yes, indeed. I trust I need not point out the two cases in which it is confirmed?

"The question then may be posed, "...why does a man with a knife choose to strangle his victim?"

Suppose his knife is for work and his strangling is a by product of a hot temper whist delusional?

"Strangulation takes time & effort, and depending on the build & fortitude of the victim, the killer could be in for a noisy & strenuous exchange compromising the time and privacy he needs to complete his task."

Indeed. My lad had a black-eye and bruise when he was examined.

Noisy exchange? Like talking loudly?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

conjecture

Hello Gareth. Thanks.

Not a bad conjecture.

Cheers.
LC