The FBI Profile of Jack the Ripper & it's usefulness

[RockySullivan]

I am of the opinion that Torso & Jack could very well be one and the same. I'm far from being knowledgable but that's my lowly opinion from the little research i've done. It's interesting to me how at least one of Torso unidentified victims where described as possibly not being "street walkers" or very poor due to the condition of the hands. I find it interesting the quote posted from the inquest where Torso was described as being possibly a butcher. I've wondered if the ripper gained his knowledge of human anatomy from his torso victims but then again no torso victims show signs of evisceration that I know of. And a butcher would already have knowledge of the organs to commit the rippings. So a butcher Torso Killer is an interesting thought.

[Fisherman]

Mabuse:

Huh. You know, that is a pretty good point. Now that you mention it, I had basically assumed that that was all coincidence. That he'd chosen the New Scotland Yard site merely because it was a rough old building site, that the Shelley connection was modern researchers seeing connections where they weren't warranted ... hmmm.

But if so, we're talking about a much more cerebral kind of killer, and getting into that whole pattern thing, like Stephenson making an inverted cross on the map or whatever it was, and so on. I'm wary of that, because the human mind sees patterns in random data.

Yeah, that would be a similar kind of showing off or display.

Ugh. If only we had better records from the era.

Either way, if that was what was really going on, forget poor dupes like Kosminski. This is coming up the scale of intellect and ability quite a bit, and we're in ... a weird area.

Kosm ... Who?

Iīve spent thirty years plus chasing this guy. Never once have Aaron Kosminski seemed a fair bid. If I had had Anderson here, heīd be in a whole lot of trouble!


Yes, that is a very strong line of reasoning. One I hadn't fully considered.

The only reasonable motivation I can think of for the different dispersal locations is that he thinks dumping it all in one place is too risky. He needs to get rid of the corpse, perhaps because he's dismembered it at home, but cannot haul it all away in one large piece. This methodology is seen in other murder cases.

But some of those drop points do seem rather provocative.

If his choice of dumping locations is deliberate, well, that takes it into a totally different area, I agree.

They were deliberate alright - otherwise he took a whole lot of trouble totally unneccesarily. He would have to scale a fence at the New Scotland Yard building to get in - or he knew how to open the gate. Either way, it was risky and demanding work. He dug down a piece or two in the basement, but left the torso to be found.

Yeah, this has given me quite a bit to think about, for which I am grateful.

Of course, this scenario takes the Ripper into the "criminal mastermind" area, which many find unacceptable. I was chewed out by someone on another thread for suggesting that the Ripper chose his sites carefully, by a poster who castigated me for buying into the 'cloaked and top-hatted doctor' image, which was quite the strawman. I was merely stating that I didn't think the Ripper was some completely deranged gargoyle of a human, but a normal-seeming, hidden psychopath serial killer of the 20th Century type. A Dennis Nilsen or a Ted Bundy type.

However, if what you're suggesting is on the money, he's another category of creature.

Peace.


Iīm much more pondering it than suggesting it. It may happen in days to come, though, who knows?

The best,
Fisherman

[Mabuse]

Well, I think all that jibber-jabber about how the Torso killer dismembers for practical reasons is a bit ridiculous. If he was all about practicalities, then why take the trouble to distribute bits and pieces in the New Scotland Yard and at the home of Mary Shelleys son (I think he was a son, but I am not sure I am remembering correctly). There was a lot of morbid humour and a lot of risktaking on his behalf that evinces a lot more of showboating than of a practical man to me. It would seem that he was governed by a wish/need to brag and show himself off.

Huh. You know, that is a pretty good point. Now that you mention it, I had basically assumed that that was all coincidence. That he'd chosen the New Scotland Yard site merely because it was a rough old building site, that the Shelley connection was modern researchers seeing connections where they weren't warranted ... hmmm.

But if so, we're talking about a much more cerebral kind of killer, and getting into that whole pattern thing, like Stephenson making an inverted cross on the map or whatever it was, and so on. I'm wary of that, because the human mind sees patterns in random data.

Yeah, that would be a similar kind of showing off or display.

Ugh. If only we had better records from the era.

Either way, if that was what was really going on, forget poor dupes like Kosminski. This is coming up the scale of intellect and ability quite a bit, and we're in ... a weird area.

Once again, Mr Torso put a torso in the basement of the New Scotland Yard building! How is that trying to get rid of things? It was a show-off. He hurled one body part into the garden of a man whose mother had written about the monster of Frankenstein - a creature put together of dead body parts.
It is proven that although he could have dumped the body parts from the same spot at the same remove in time, he actively chose to instead distribute them all over London, in parks, floating on the Thames, in private gardens, in police buildings.
Isnīt that a display too? I think it is.

Yes, that is a very strong line of reasoning. One I hadn't fully considered.

The only reasonable motivation I can think of for the different dispersal locations is that he thinks dumping it all in one place is too risky. He needs to get rid of the corpse, perhaps because he's dismembered it at home, but cannot haul it all away in one large piece. This methodology is seen in other murder cases.

But some of those drop points do seem rather provocative.

If his choice of dumping locations is deliberate, well, that takes it into a totally different area, I agree.

There are arguments to serve both takes. What I think is that we must at least be open to the possibility to a larger extent than we used to be.

Yeah, this has given me quite a bit to think about, for which I am grateful.

Of course, this scenario takes the Ripper into the "criminal mastermind" area, which many find unacceptable. I was chewed out by someone on another thread for suggesting that the Ripper chose his sites carefully, by a poster who castigated me for buying into the 'cloaked and top-hatted doctor' image, which was quite the strawman. I was merely stating that I didn't think the Ripper was some completely deranged gargoyle of a human, but a normal-seeming, hidden psychopath serial killer of the 20th Century type. A Dennis Nilsen or a Ted Bundy type.

However, if what you're suggesting is on the money, he's another category of creature.

Peace.

M.

[Fisherman]

Mabuse:

I vacillate about the Thames Torso Killer being the Whitechapel Murderer. At times I have thought it is too much of a stretch to have two serial killers in the same general period and locality. At others I think the crimes are too different in pattern, and Torso Killer is operating in a bit of a wider area, while Whitechapel Murderer looks very limited in range.

That is a good point. Much hinges on whether the Ripper had the means to cover that wider area. If so, we have an accessibility to both crime types.

Then again, the mystery of how Jack gets his relative understanding of internal anatomy may be explained by him also doing the torso crimes. And, since we don't know where Jack really started or how he progressed, we can't rule out a more varied development.

True - and something I have given some thought too. Many have been baffled by the sudden evolution of a throat-cutting eviscerator with a set agenda and an ability to pull it all off from day one. Previous experience could lie behind that, including the knowledge about where to find different organs.

Thames Torso Murderer is pretty good at disarticulating joints. Jack appears to make no attempt at this when he has the chance with Kelly, however.

If the focus was not his own private one but instead part of an ongoing communication attempt, then we may not have to worry about that.

Torso guy also appears to be hiding his bodies, or disposing of them in a way that distances himself from the crimes. Jack is not doing this, he's an exhibitionist. (I can't imagine the adrenaline buzz this guy gets after the Dutfield's Yard near-miss. And he goes on to do it again that night. Unbelievable.)

Well, I think all that jibber-jabber about how the Torso killer dismembers for practical reasons is a bit ridiculous. If he was all about practicalities, then why take the trouble to distribute bits and pieces in the New Scotland Yard and at the home of Mary Shelleys son (I think he was a son, but I am not sure I am remembering correctly). There was a lot of morbid humour and a lot of risktaking on his behalf that evinces a lot more of showboating than of a practical man to me. It would seem that he was governed by a wish/need to brag and show himself off.

The Torso Killer does dump at least one parcel under the figurative noses of witnesses, however, on (if I count correctly) October 29 1884 in Fitzroy Square. That's within a fifteen minute window of police patrols, very reminiscent of Jack and the patrols around Mitre Square. One might be tempted to think he is timing police patrols, a suggestion which provokes howls of derision from those who think Jack is a disordered thinker and driven by delusional compulsion.

Yes, that was a hugely risky undertaking. And yes, it IS eerily reminiscent of Mitre Square. And of Buckīs Row too, if you ask me.

Two separate killers with slightly more than basic understanding of the human body, in the same locale and time period? Stretches credulity a bit.

It does.

However, Whitechapel guy is clearly making a display. Torso guy is seemingly trying to get rid of his body parts. Seems to be a significant difference in approach.

Once again, Mr Torso put a torso in the basement of the New Scotland Yard building! How is that trying to get rid of things? It was a show-off. He hurled one body part into the garden of a man whose mother had written about the monster of Frankenstein - a creature put together of dead body parts.
It is proven that although he could have dumped the body parts from the same spot at the same remove in time, he actively chose to instead distribute them all over London, in parks, floating on the Thames, in private gardens, in police buildings.
Isnīt that a display too? I think it is.

This whole issue of the anatomical knowledge appears to be a factor of some importance. I get the impression it may have been overstressed by contemporaries, but on the other hand, finding organs under membranes and layers of fat in the near pitch dark would be difficult without experience.

Once we accept that he went for the kidney, for example, then yes. Could he have gone for that membrane without knowing what he would find behind it? Thatīs the question!

A knacker or a butcher. I get a hunch this is more what we are looking for.

I am not gainsaying you on that score - it could well be right.

It's a real poser, that one. Very tempting to think that Torso Guy is also Jack. If he is, he's capable of changing his M.O. dramatically. If that's the case, all bets are off, and we should be looking at a whole bunch of other murders in the general time frame and locality for linked patterns. That would mean a quite extraordinary killer to rival H.H. Holmes or Albert Fish.

It would be extraordinary, yes. But common denominators are there.

My conservative view at this time is that these are different guys.

There are arguments to serve both takes. What I think is that we must at least be open to the possibility to a larger extent than we used to be.

Thanks for your well argued and thougthful reply!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Is it just me, or does it seem somehow different to leave a butchered corpse uncovered than sending a fetus down the Thames in a jar A la Moses in the basket?

Like it's two completely different sick senses of humor.

It IS different, Errata, no doubt about that. But remember how you said yourself that it is odd how the Ripper seems to have no true focus - how he chooses different innards to go for, how he seems to have a changed taste from day to day.

Thatīs what makes me think that he may be trying to satisfy somebody else than himself. And it involves sort of a communication with the surrounding world: Look, I took a uterus. Lok now, I took a kidney! Hey, I can carve up a face.
Whatever does the trick.

In that sense, if you are not fully focused yourself on what YOU want to do, but instead on what has the wow factor, if you like, then maybe we can reconcile the two types...?

Weird? You bet. Far-fetched? Yep. But I also wonder why the focus seemingly alters, why there is seemingly a wish to display etcetera.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mabuse]

Thatīs not half bad, Mabuse! So let me ask you - if he really was into a sort of communicating his perceived superiority instead of trying to satisfy an inner urge to procure organs; why would we not allow for him having been the Torso killer too?
That was a man who enjoyed sending a message about what he could do!

The suggestion as such is a bit tabooish to many people, but letīs let the cat out of the bag for a while and see what happens.

The best,
Fisherman

I thank you!

I vacillate about the Thames Torso Killer being the Whitechapel Murderer. At times I have thought it is too much of a stretch to have two serial killers in the same general period and locality. At others I think the crimes are too different in pattern, and Torso Killer is operating in a bit of a wider area, while Whitechapel Murderer looks very limited in range.

Then again, the mystery of how Jack gets his relative understanding of internal anatomy may be explained by him also doing the torso crimes. And, since we don't know where Jack really started or how he progressed, we can't rule out a more varied development.

Thames Torso Murderer is pretty good at disarticulating joints. Jack appears to make no attempt at this when he has the chance with Kelly, however.

Torso guy also appears to be hiding his bodies, or disposing of them in a way that distances himself from the crimes. Jack is not doing this, he's an exhibitionist. (I can't imagine the adrenaline buzz this guy gets after the Dutfield's Yard near-miss. And he goes on to do it again that night. Unbelievable.)

The Torso Killer does dump at least one parcel under the figurative noses of witnesses, however, on (if I count correctly) October 29 1884 in Fitzroy Square. That's within a fifteen minute window of police patrols, very reminiscent of Jack and the patrols around Mitre Square. One might be tempted to think he is timing police patrols, a suggestion which provokes howls of derision from those who think Jack is a disordered thinker and driven by delusional compulsion.

June 1889 Torso Killer inquest:

At the inquest on June 17, it was stated that, "the division of the parts showed skill and design: not, however, the anatomical skill of a surgeon, but the practical knowledge of a butcher or a knacker. There was a great similarity between the condition, as regarded cutting up, of the remains and that of those found at Rainham, and at the new police building on the Thames Embankment." The London Times of June 5, reported that "in the opinion of the doctors the women had been dead only 48 hours, and the body had been dissected somewhat roughly by a person who must have had some knowledge of the joints of the human body."

Two separate killers with slightly more than basic understanding of the human body, in the same locale and time period? Stretches credulity a bit.

However, Whitechapel guy is clearly making a display. Torso guy is seemingly trying to get rid of his body parts. Seems to be a significant difference in approach.

This whole issue of the anatomical knowledge appears to be a factor of some importance. I get the impression it may have been overstressed by contemporaries, but on the other hand, finding organs under membranes and layers of fat in the near pitch dark would be difficult without experience.

A knacker or a butcher. I get a hunch this is more what we are looking for.

It's a real poser, that one. Very tempting to think that Torso Guy is also Jack. If he is, he's capable of changing his M.O. dramatically. If that's the case, all bets are off, and we should be looking at a whole bunch of other murders in the general time frame and locality for linked patterns. That would mean a quite extraordinary killer to rival H.H. Holmes or Albert Fish.

My conservative view at this time is that these are different guys.

[Errata]

Thatīs not half bad, Mabuse! So let me ask you - if he really was into a sort of communicating his perceived superiority instead of trying to satisfy an inner urge to procure organs; why would we not allow for him having been the Torso killer too?
That was a man who enjoyed sending a message about what he could do!

The suggestion as such is a bit tabooish to many people, but letīs let the cat out of the bag for a while and see what happens.

The best,
Fisherman

Is it just me, or does it seem somehow different to leave a butchered corpse uncovered than sending a fetus down the Thames in a jar A la Moses in the basket?

Like it's two completely different sick senses of humor.

[Fisherman]

It seems strange to me that people are assuming the Whitechapel Murderer is choosing places that are secluded, and are puzzled that the places at which he actually commits his crimes are not really very secluded.

We then get confused or counter-intuitive assumptions about his mental state, how delusional he might be, how intelligent, and what-not, in order to make sense of this strange contradiction, when the problem is really the assumption about his choice of sites.

Does it not seem logical to assume that he is deliberately choosing places that are right under the noses of witnesses?

Part of his M.O. IMHO is the frisson he experiences by performing these atrocities in places where he can be caught, and getting away, sometimes with minutes or even seconds to spare. He also needs the bodies to be found very quickly. This is what he's after.

At Dutfield's Yard he apparently made a mistake and was nearly caught. I think the assumption about the door is very logical; he doesn't expect people to come through the yard. He still needs to enact his fantasy of killing, mutilating and getting away right under the figurative noses of witnesses, so he is compelled to go on to do it again the same night.

As he progresses he deliberately poses his victims, skirts up, organs spilled out, private parts exposed and their humanity debased for all to see. That's his purpose. He's destroying them as humans, and he needs people to see the results. He also needs to do it in what is to him a daring and provocative manner, and escape like a phantom. The zenith of this is with Kelly. He's making a display.

He needs someone to find his display, to be horrified. That's partly why he's compelled to choose these spots.

He's not doing this to procure organs per se. That he takes body parts is souvenir collecting. He goes from abdominal organs to (apparently) removing Kelly's heart. The symbolic nature of this should be readily apparent.

He's just opportunistically taking what he can, as he goes along and becomes more extreme, it goes from small possessions of the victims to actual parts of them.

The only consideration of the sites is that they be secluded enough for him to perform his atrocities, but he absolutely needs them to be in places where the public will find and see the bodies, the awful tableau he has created. This satisfies the principle of parsimony in so far as his motivation.

He could quite easily kill in abandoned buildings, building sites, empty lots, etc. There were many such places in the area. He doesn't. This is significant because he needs the bodies to be found in the posed manner in which he leaves them, he needs the terror to spread, he wants to destroy and debase his victims, and he wants to prove he is a powerful hunter by doing it right there in places where he can be caught, but escapes.

I doubt if he's taunting the police as such, I don't believe he writes any of the letters. I think he needs to prove his superiority, however, by committing his crimes where he can possibly be interdicted, part of the power trip. Thus he has to do so in relatively public places - or as public as he can risk.

This is the answer to the conundrum of the site choice.

It's highly likely that he's aborted many more forays than he brings to completion, if you forgive the expression.

Peace.

M

Thatīs not half bad, Mabuse! So let me ask you - if he really was into a sort of communicating his perceived superiority instead of trying to satisfy an inner urge to procure organs; why would we not allow for him having been the Torso killer too?
That was a man who enjoyed sending a message about what he could do!

The suggestion as such is a bit tabooish to many people, but letīs let the cat out of the bag for a while and see what happens.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mabuse]

It seems strange to me that people are assuming the Whitechapel Murderer is choosing places that are secluded, and are puzzled that the places at which he actually commits his crimes are not really very secluded.

We then get confused or counter-intuitive assumptions about his mental state, how delusional he might be, how intelligent, and what-not, in order to make sense of this strange contradiction, when the problem is really the assumption about his choice of sites.

Does it not seem logical to assume that he is deliberately choosing places that are right under the noses of witnesses?

Part of his M.O. IMHO is the frisson he experiences by performing these atrocities in places where he can be caught, and getting away, sometimes with minutes or even seconds to spare. He also needs the bodies to be found very quickly. This is what he's after.

At Dutfield's Yard he apparently made a mistake and was nearly caught. I think the assumption about the door is very logical; he doesn't expect people to come through the yard. He still needs to enact his fantasy of killing, mutilating and getting away right under the figurative noses of witnesses, so he is compelled to go on to do it again the same night.

As he progresses he deliberately poses his victims, skirts up, organs spilled out, private parts exposed and their humanity debased for all to see. That's his purpose. He's destroying them as humans, and he needs people to see the results. He also needs to do it in what is to him a daring and provocative manner, and escape like a phantom. The zenith of this is with Kelly. He's making a display.

He needs someone to find his display, to be horrified. That's partly why he's compelled to choose these spots.

He's not doing this to procure organs per se. That he takes body parts is souvenir collecting. He goes from abdominal organs to (apparently) removing Kelly's heart. The symbolic nature of this should be readily apparent.

He's just opportunistically taking what he can, as he goes along and becomes more extreme, it goes from small possessions of the victims to actual parts of them.

The only consideration of the sites is that they be secluded enough for him to perform his atrocities, but he absolutely needs them to be in places where the public will find and see the bodies, the awful tableau he has created. This satisfies the principle of parsimony in so far as his motivation.

He could quite easily kill in abandoned buildings, building sites, empty lots, etc. There were many such places in the area. He doesn't. This is significant because he needs the bodies to be found in the posed manner in which he leaves them, he needs the terror to spread, he wants to destroy and debase his victims, and he wants to prove he is a powerful hunter by doing it right there in places where he can be caught, but escapes.

I doubt if he's taunting the police as such, I don't believe he writes any of the letters. I think he needs to prove his superiority, however, by committing his crimes where he can possibly be interdicted, part of the power trip. Thus he has to do so in relatively public places - or as public as he can risk.

This is the answer to the conundrum of the site choice.

It's highly likely that he's aborted many more forays than he brings to completion, if you forgive the expression.

Peace.

M

[Errata]

Due to the victims knowing each other/some living on the same street/people in common...I think the Ripper was targeting women he knew. Perhaps he developed a fantasy about these specific women. But what is it about them that appealed to the ripper?

Fine question. I don't know the answer to that. I don't know that the killer knew the answer to that. In fact, I don't even know if these women appealed to him at all. He might have just had a job to do, and they were around when he had to do it. This is why I'm saying this guy was all over the place. Not in a disorganized crazy kind of way. It reminds me of my four year old niece, where everything is the best thing ever. They can't ALL be the best thing ever, but she swears they are.

[Fisherman]

In contrast, the only tangible threat of discovery that existed in Dutfield's Yard was from the club. And how much of a threat was this?,

John

An obvious one, Iīd say. To me, much hinges on the door. If he knew that it was used by the clubbers, heīd be a fool to use the yard. If not, I fail to see why it wouold not seem an ideal place to kill and eviscerate for him.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

So, the presence nearby of a number of potential interferers, witnesses - even captors - is uninteresting from a prospective murderer's POV? Take my advice, Fish, never become a murderer. Not that you would, of course.

Well, pointing me out as ignorant would go some way to make me murderous, Gareth

This killer had to face that possibility in each case, please remeber that! I donīt think that he would start the procedure of killing as long as he was seen by any witnesses, and therefore I suspect that Berner Street was empty but for Liz Stride as he set the wheels in motion. I think the exact same thing applied in each case.
After that, somebody could exit a door in the stairwell of George Yard, come walking into Buckīs Row at any given time, head for the loo in the backyard of Hanbury Street, pass through Mitre Square from any of the three routes leading into it and come looking for Mary Kelly and perhaps knock on the door only to proceed to do what Bowyer did - push the coat and curtains to the side ...
Why would Dutfields Yard be in any way more risky?
There would be no coppers passing into it, as he risked in Mitre Square, no carman would come walking into it as in Buckīs Row, no concierge like Hewitt would open his door twelve feet from you etcetera. If it had not been for that door - which the killer could not foresee - it was a secluded, dark place where nobody was likely to go at one o clock in the night.

There would always be risks, but some of the risks he ran in the other spots would not be in place there.

Iīve said what I have to say, so I wonīt repeat myself any further. I think the old notion that it was an extremely risky place needs to be given some afterthought. If he did not realize that there was a club door in the yard, it could well have seemed a safe bet to get seclusion on his behalf, thatīs how I see it.

The best,
Fisherman

[RockySullivan]

Serial killers are extremely compulsive by nature. Not that there aren't people who would rip the face off of anyone they encounter, but they aren't serial killers. They end up as mass murderers or spree killers.

Serial killers do what they do for a reason. Not a good reason, but a reason. They obey the rules of their fantasies. Which sounds like delusion, and rarely is in fact delusion. But mostly it is a lack of... not impulse control exactly, but the inability or unwillingness to resist compulsion. They "want" to do something, it turns into "need", they do it. It satisfies them.

Jack the Ripper did not kill only to procure organs. He killed because he had an elaborate fantasy in his head that he needed to recreate. The fantasy gave him pleasure or relief, acting on it... more so. The fantasy included taking organs. He did. But one of the interesting parts of this mystery is that Jack has a tough time prioritizing. Take the Eyeball Killer. Just from the name you know what his priority was. He had an elaborate fantasy, but if he could not replicate that, he would still take the eyes. The eyes were the most important part. You can tell what murder victims were his by, if nothing else, the fact that the eyes were removed.

Jack the Ripper is tough. If we accept that he killed 5 or 6 women (the C5 plus maybe Tabram) then we have some real problems figuring out what this guy was after. Was he targeting middle aged prostitutes? Maybe, except that Kelly was not middle aged, and we don't know that all of these women were working prostitutes. Women with brown hair seems like way too big a victim pool, and two victims did not have brown hair. Nor were they all the same body type. It might have been a voice thing, but we have no way of knowing that.

And if we look at the murders themselves, the problems get bigger. Any idiot can see that if a man takes the time to burrow in there and grab a uterus, thats significant. But if that was the purpose, why did he fail 3 out of 5 times? If it's important, if that's what makes it worth it, he doesn't leave that behind. And he did. And he evidently spent just as much time sawing away at the throats of these women (after they were dead) as he did getting into the abdomens. The throat cut was not just a way to kill. He kept going. And going. The throat is significant. The abdomen is significant. Facial mutilations are significant. The posing may be significant. And I can't even a little think of any other serial killer with so many primary focuses. If these women had been been alive when these things were done, that might make sense to me. It's a basic form of torture. But they were dead.

Eyeball Killer had a fantasy, but the eyeballs were the focus. For Damher, the victims body type and the desire to control his victims were the focus. For Bundy, it was victim type and sadism. Son of Sam, terrorism. For Gein, this was the only acceptable contact with women that he had. For Jack... the organs, the throat the abdomen, the face, the post mortem behavior, the rush... and too many focuses is no focus. Jack had no focus. Everything was apparently equally important, so nothing was important, and that doesn't happen. So we are clearly missing something. I mean, we are missing a lot, but the statement that the Ripper only killed to procure organs is just massively untrue. And frankly, kind of dumb.

Every time I think about this particular aspect, I become convinced that there are two killers working together, despite the fact I really don't believe that to be true.

Due to the victims knowing each other/some living on the same street/people in common...I think the Ripper was targeting women he knew. Perhaps he developed a fantasy about these specific women. But what is it about them that appealed to the ripper?

[c.d.]

If Stride's killer were Jack, I don' t think that it is unreasonable to think that he might have have been overconfident of his ability to deal with whatever came up based on the success of the previous murders. I can see that feeling quickly evaporating if Liz struggled at all or called out and/or something made him think a club member or members might be emerging from the club.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Course-correction

New thread on the comparative "safety" of each murder site started here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8400