A Human Tiger

[Pierre]

Paul showed up.

Lechmere showed up.

[Fisherman]

How could he have been disturbed? Lechmere was standing in the street when Paul showed up.

Regards, Pierre

Paul showed up.

[Pierre]

Basically, I think the killer worked to the same overall scheme every time. The circumstances would then rule to what extent he was able to fulfil his ideas; he was seemingly disturbed at the Nichols scene and at the Stride scene, while he had lots of time in Hanbury Street, but not very much light, and there was a need for some speed, since people would enter the yard sooner or later. Eddowes - basically same thing.
It was not until Millerīs Court that he was able to accomplish so many of the specific ingredients of his overall goal that we are able to see where he got his inspiration and what his driving force behind the staging of the scene was - if I am correct.

I think that he came with a plan, a plan that was very firmly fixed, but I am anything but sure that he knew that he would get the opportunity to work in seclusion and with time on his hands. My guess is that he took what he could get, and if Kelly had been a street prostitute, turning tricks in back alleys,

then I would probably not have much of an idea what he came looking for.

The heart?

[Pierre]

Basically, I think the killer worked to the same overall scheme every time. The circumstances would then rule to what extent he was able to fulfil his ideas; he was seemingly disturbed at the Nichols scene and at the Stride scene, while he had lots of time in Hanbury Street, but not very much light, and there was a need for some speed, since people would enter the yard sooner or later. Eddowes - basically same thing.
It was not until Millerīs Court that he was able to accomplish so many of the specific ingredients of his overall goal that we are able to see where he got his inspiration and what his driving force behind the staging of the scene was - if I am correct.

I think that he came with a plan, a plan that was very firmly fixed, but I am anything but sure that he knew that he would get the opportunity to work in seclusion and with time on his hands. My guess is that he took what he could get, and if Kelly had been a street prostitute, turning tricks in back alleys, then I would probably not have much of an idea what he came looking for.

How could he have been disturbed? Lechmere was standing in the street when Paul showed up.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Staging the murder scene at Miller's Court may have something to do with the killer's motive, yes. But it's still not enough to be sure that this is exactly what he planned to do that night, instead than just let the occasion fall into his lap. Opting to commit a murder into a secluded space, whetever that was planned beforehand or not, may be the result of a plan to both avoid unecessary risks and to indulge in more mutilations, but that's not telling us above any possible doubt what the killer's motive was. I'll say, on the other hand, that we already know that the killer got enough organizational skills to be able to not commit very basic errors like leaving his weapons at the murder scenes. He was not a "complete" tiger, but his motive may have been a completely separeted story.

Basically, I think the killer worked to the same overall scheme every time. The circumstances would then rule to what extent he was able to fulfil his ideas; he was seemingly disturbed at the Nichols scene and at the Stride scene, while he had lots of time in Hanbury Street, but not very much light, and there was a need for some speed, since people would enter the yard sooner or later. Eddowes - basically same thing.
It was not until Millerīs Court that he was able to accomplish so many of the specific ingredients of his overall goal that we are able to see where he got his inspiration and what his driving force behind the staging of the scene was - if I am correct.

I think that he came with a plan, a plan that was very firmly fixed, but I am anything but sure that he knew that he would get the opportunity to work in seclusion and with time on his hands. My guess is that he took what he could get, and if Kelly had been a street prostitute, turning tricks in back alleys, then I would probably not have much of an idea what he came looking for.

[Pierre]

Pierre

I notice, not for the first time, you are hinting, at the possibility of the killer trying to scare someone!
A particular person, whom I assume is your unknown witness and caller of "murder" in Millers Court.

Is that the case?

s

Well Steve, I wrote "Perhaps" and finished the question with a question mark. I think the question is clear. Do you have any hypothetical answers, just for fun?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi there CommercialRoadWanderer,

No, there is no reason to believe that if the murder of MJK was "precise", whatever that means - throwing bits of flesh on the floor, laying them on tables, perhaps hanging them over a chair? - that the motive of the killer was to be precise just for the sake of preciseness!

Perhaps the killer wanted things to be exactly in the worst order in order to scare someone?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

I notice, not for the first time, you are hinting, at the possibility of the killer trying to scare someone!
A particular person, whom I assume is your unknown witness and caller of "murder" in Millers Court.

Is that the case?


s

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

Hi there CommercialRoadWanderer,

No, there is no reason to believe that if the murder of MJK was "precise", whatever that means - throwing bits of flesh on the floor, laying them on tables, perhaps hanging them over a chair? - that the motive of the killer was to be precise just for the sake of preciseness!

Perhaps the killer wanted things to be exactly in the worst order in order to scare someone?

Regards, Pierre

Staging the murder scene at Miller's Court may have something to do with the killer's motive, yes. But it's still not enough to be sure that this is exactly what he planned to do that night, instead than just let the occasion fall into his lap. Opting to commit a murder into a secluded space, whetever that was planned beforehand or not, may be the result of a plan to both avoid unecessary risks and to indulge in more mutilations, but that's not telling us above any possible doubt what the killer's motive was. I'll say, on the other hand, that we already know that the killer got enough organizational skills to be able to not commit very basic errors like leaving his weapons at the murder scenes. He was not a "complete" tiger, but his motive may have been a completely separeted story.

[Pierre]

It seems to me that organization and motives are two different things. We are not entitled to think, without any proof, that since the modalites of the MJK murder were apparently so precise, the murder has some kind of motive to pull them off exactly like that. A tiger may not be that picky about what she is going to hunt, but that does not mean that she is not going to hunt that properly to maximize her chances to eat.

Hi there CommercialRoadWanderer,

No, there is no reason to believe that if the murder of MJK was "precise", whatever that means - throwing bits of flesh on the floor, laying them on tables, perhaps hanging them over a chair? - that the motive of the killer was to be precise just for the sake of preciseness!

Perhaps the killer wanted things to be exactly in the worst order in order to scare someone?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer:

I have troubles with nothing.

Congratulations! The fewest enjoy that situation.

It's just that i like to be very clear about when i theorize something out of possibly nothing more than my fantasy and when, differently, i try to stick to the real world.

I know the feeling. That is why I do not ground any theorizing on "nothing more than my fantasy".

You may think that some unproven facts may be the key of a possible solution, but i would rather stand clear of them if i'm completely unable to find something about them.

I know that feeling too. That is why I stick with the theory, since I have been able to find a lot that supports it.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

I have troubles with nothing. It's just that i like to be very clear about when i theorize something out of possibly nothing more than my fantasy and when, differently, i try to stick to the real world. You may think that some unproven facts may be the key of a possible solution, but i would rather stand clear of them if i'm completely unable to find something about them.

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer: I pointed out that, at least for me, organizational skills don't necessairly tell anything about motive.

That is true.

And when i use the word "motive" in the field of murders, i mean "i'm out to kill for this reason" not "i kill in this or that way because i care about not getting caught by the cops" or anything similar.

A wise enough methodology. Iīm not sure that every serial killer clarifies the issue to himself, but broadly I sympathize with what you say.

Maybe the killer had a precise motive for, as an example, wanting to murder MJK in her house, but without any proof of that, i would rather think that it's simply part of the the very little organizational skill required to understand that killing someone indoor in safer than in the streets.

I would not go either way until I knew. But as I said before, we are free to think whatever we want on the issue.

You are of course free to convince yourself of whatever you want.

It is not me convincing myself, it is the little bits and pieces involved that does so.

I already told you in the recent past, however, that for my tastes you are in habit of stretch things a little to much to make them fit where simple logic would rather not consider possible.

I think you may have misworded yourself somewhat there. Or maybe itīs just me, being a Swede, who has difficulties understading that last sentence.
Anyhow, the problem with stretching things is when you say "A applies so B must be the solution", and I donpt do that. I am saying "A applies, and that means that B can be the solution, and personally I think it is".

If you are having trouble with that, you should not be on these boards.

I would also like to add that I have not posted all the bits I ground my case on, so you are making a judgment based on insufficient material. In that respect, you are on the correct boards.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

I pointed out that, at least for me, organizational skills don't necessairly tell anything about motive. And when i use the word "motive" in the field of murders, i mean "i'm out to kill for this reason" not "i kill in this or that way because i care about not getting caught by the cops" or anything similar.

Maybe the killer had a precise motive for, as an example, wanting to murder MJK in her house, but without any proof of that, i would rather think that it's simply part of the the very little organizational skill required to understand that killing someone indoor in safer than in the streets.

You are of course free to convince yourself of whatever you want. I already told you in the recent past, however, that for my tastes you are in habit of stretch things a little to much to make them fit where simple logic would rather not consider possible.

[Fisherman]

We are not entitled to think, without any proof, that since the modalites of the MJK murder were apparently so precise, the murder has some kind of motive to pull them off exactly like that.

We are entitled to think exactly what we want to think. As long as we do not claim that it is a proven thing, we are free to entertain any theory or idea about the Kelly murder we wish to. So you got that wrong, as far as Iīm concerned.

As for me, I am convinced that the killer worked to an agenda, and that he was focused and precise about what he did. I am equally convinced that I know what that agenda looked like, to a large degree.

So I am in the clear either way.

I also think we should be careful when toying with the term "motive" in combonation with discussion serial murder. I would be less inclined to say that I think I know the motive behond the killings, and more inclined to speak of an inspiration ground. Overall, we will end up with the motive "wanting to kill" in many cases of serial murder, and the term as such is therefore not a very useful one.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

It seems to me that organization and motives are two different things. We are not entitled to think, without any proof, that since the modalites of the MJK murder were apparently so precise, the murder has some kind of motive to pull them off exactly like that. A tiger may not be that picky about what she is going to hunt, but that does not mean that she is not going to hunt that properly to maximize her chances to eat.