A Human Tiger

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre
In all seriousness. IMHO the ripper was a highly organized type of killer.

It seems he rused the victims to get them where he wanted them.
There was pre planning in how he targeted and engaged his victims.
He was perceptive enough to never get caught, seemingly escaping the instant there was trouble.
He brought the murder weapon with him
He never left behind any incriminating evidence.

re Stride-lost his temper with her and was temporarily dis organized by attacking her before he had her exactly where he wanted her.

Hi,

I agree with all of your points except for the two last ones.

Regards, Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Fisherman.
I noticed he adapted his style from Chapman to Eddowes. A begrudging Dr. Phillips has to be pressed by Wynne Baxter to reveal the type of abdominal cuts that were made. He eventually consents (which makes me question whether his pm report was ever published). He states that her abdomen was portioned out.

If Annie was a bloody mess, it's possible that Jack the Ripper was a bloody mess. So rather than remove Catherine's abdomen in portions, he may have sliced her down the middle (possibly for a 'cleaner' murder). Obviously, this appears to have improved his "aim" because he removes the uterus precisely without damaging her bladder or vagina.

I am considering the 73 torso killing, Fisherman. Obviously, the nose-cutting stands out.

[Fisherman]

He may not have been doing it on purpose, but Chapman and Eddowes seem to have been uncannily similar....

Not really, no. Eddowes was - as Watkins correctly pointed out - cut up like a market pig.
But which butcher cuts the abdominal wall from a pig in four large panes...?

In that respect - and the opening of the abdomen is what makes us think of pig (or other) slaughter, right? - there was a significant difference.

[Joshua Rogan]

But he is not reproducing the slaughter of a pig (or any other animal) if you ask me. He may have had he skill and experience, and it may have coloured what he did. But it was not the underlying reason - once again, if you ask me...!

He may not have been doing it on purpose, but Chapman and Eddowes seem to have been uncannily similar....

[Fisherman]

Pig slaughterer was on a short list of professions that I could think up on the fly, Pierre. Jack the Ripper killed Mary Jane Kelly by cutting her throat and bleeding her out, which shows a comfort level with killing. He removes her organs and butchers her leg. And, ears and nose made me think of how the snout and ears are used for dining.

He displays organization because he reveals anatomical knowledge. As prior posted, the detectives didn't find chunks of her spleen, liver, bladder mixed together and flung around the room because he was chopping maniacally at her like an amateur. When we were debating MJK3, I wondered if the white scratch marks on her pelvis were made by the point of his knife as he removed that particular muscle (I can net an image of that pelvic muscle but not the name). Overall, it gave me the impression that her body parts were removed with a purpose which indicates organization.

You were connecting my 2nd post to his motive, which I am not entirely set on yet because I don't know if Mary Jane Kelly was special to him. If I slaughtered pigs for a living and you asked me to cut open a human body, I might refer back to my profession. My skillset is not my motive; it's just part of my instinctual knowledge.


In order to ruin Lord Mayor's Day, Jack the Ripper killed:
A. Mary Jane Kelly
B. A prostitute with an apartment

If it is Option B, then the motive is Lord Mayors Day, and he could have been using a set of skills that were familiar to him to accomplish that task. Mary Jane Kelly would be nothing more than a means to the end. If it is Option A, then maybe there was something ritualized to the event.

Which do you think it is?

R.St.D.

A very good post, making a number of very good points. The organs were carefully cut loose and taken out. Compare this to how he seemingly took a lot of care not to damage the eye-region. Same thing, same basic reason.

More or less all the cuts will fit into this thinking. It is really by far the most focused of all the Ripper killings. We need to look at the Torso murders, where he had even more time and privacy on his hands, to find something that surpasses Kelly. It arrived in the shape of the 1873 "death mask", cut from the face, eyelids and -lashes included, in one single piece.
Same thing again - extreme care, a clear focus, exact cutting.

But he is not reproducing the slaughter of a pig (or any other animal) if you ask me. He may have had he skill and experience, and it may have coloured what he did. But it was not the underlying reason - once again, if you ask me...!

[Robert St Devil]

Pig slaughterer was on a short list of professions that I could think up on the fly, Pierre. Jack the Ripper killed Mary Jane Kelly by cutting her throat and bleeding her out, which shows a comfort level with killing. He removes her organs and butchers her leg. And, ears and nose made me think of how the snout and ears are used for dining.

He displays organization because he reveals anatomical knowledge. As prior posted, the detectives didn't find chunks of her spleen, liver, bladder mixed together and flung around the room because he was chopping maniacally at her like an amateur. When we were debating MJK3, I wondered if the white scratch marks on her pelvis were made by the point of his knife as he removed that particular muscle (I can net an image of that pelvic muscle but not the name). Overall, it gave me the impression that her body parts were removed with a purpose which indicates organization.

You were connecting my 2nd post to his motive, which I am not entirely set on yet because I don't know if Mary Jane Kelly was special to him. If I slaughtered pigs for a living and you asked me to cut open a human body, I might refer back to my profession. My skillset is not my motive; it's just part of my instinctual knowledge.


In order to ruin Lord Mayor's Day, Jack the Ripper killed:
A. Mary Jane Kelly
B. A prostitute with an apartment

If it is Option B, then the motive is Lord Mayors Day, and he could have been using a set of skills that were familiar to him to accomplish that task. Mary Jane Kelly would be nothing more than a means to the end. If it is Option A, then maybe there was something ritualized to the event.

Which do you think it is?

R.St.D.

[Abby Normal]

Hi,

Why could it throw the Stride murder into question?

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre
In all seriousness. IMHO the ripper was a highly organized type of killer.

It seems he rused the victims to get them where he wanted them.
There was pre planning in how he targeted and engaged his victims.
He was perceptive enough to never get caught, seemingly escaping the instant there was trouble.
He brought the murder weapon with him
He never left behind any incriminating evidence.

re Stride-lost his temper with her and was temporarily dis organized by attacking her before he had her exactly where he wanted her.

[Pierre]

Pierre

Certainly the pig is anatomical very similar to human. Indeed they have commonly been used for surgical
practice

Steve

OK, Steve.

I regard your statement as very important, since I know you have the right scientific knowledge to make that statement.

Thanks.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi,

Yes, he might have held such a view.

But I wonder, would knowledge about pig slaughtering (without necessarily being a slaughterer or a butcher) have been sufficient for doing the cuts he did?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

Certainly the pig is anatomical very similar to human. Indeed they have commonly been used for surgical
practice

Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre obviously I cannot speak for Robert, however it would give the killer all the skill set needed, pigs have often been viewed as dirty animals.
Not just from a religious point of view, but generally.
Could it not be the killer saw the victims in the same light.

just an idea
please note I am not arguing he was a pig slaughter.

steve

Hi,

Yes, he might have held such a view.

But I wonder, would knowledge about pig slaughtering (without necessarily being a slaughterer or a butcher) have been sufficient for doing the cuts he did?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi,

Do you think that an hypothesis that the killer knew how to slaughter pigs is a good hypothesis for explaining the signature of the killer?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre obviously I cannot speak for Robert, however it would give the killer all the skill set needed, pigs have often been viewed as dirty animals.
Not just from a religious point of view, but generally.
Could it not be the killer saw the victims in the same light.

just an idea
please note I am not arguing he was a pig slaughter.


steve

[Pierre]

I wouldn,t have the foggiest on his motive, Pierre. For all i know, he was doing ,,this little piggie,, and he got to the one that goes ,,whee,, all the way home.

That,s not to say he had a motive. The method he used to kill Mary Kelly may have just been a consequence of his profession. If he was accustomed to slaughtering pigs, maybe that,s what he would know to do - slit the throat, cut the snout and ears, slice open the abdomen, remove the organs, cut the haunches.

That,s just preliminary thinking. Good question tho..

Hi,

Do you think that an hypothesis that the killer knew how to slaughter pigs is a good hypothesis for explaining the signature of the killer?

Regards, Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

Here,s a question for you Pierre. In your, uh, Mary Jane Kelly theory, isn,t ruining the Lord Mayor,s Day his motive? Isn,t THAT the motive behind Mary Jane Kelly,s murder... making her merely incidental, a perfect opportunity with just the right environment to pull off his dick dastardly plan?

[Robert St Devil]

This little piggie went "oh murder!"...

I wouldn,t have the foggiest on his motive, Pierre. For all i know, he was doing ,,this little piggie,, and he got to the one that goes ,,whee,, all the way home.

That,s not to say he had a motive. The method he used to kill Mary Kelly may have just been a consequence of his profession. If he was accustomed to slaughtering pigs, maybe that,s what he would know to do - slit the throat, cut the snout and ears, slice open the abdomen, remove the organs, cut the haunches.

That,s just preliminary thinking. Good question tho..

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;383042]

Pierre

that is an interesting question and not one I find it easy to give straight answers on. I see bits of both on most points.

I do not believe he lead the victims to the sites, I see it the other way. That may be viewed as either organised or disorganised depending on which stance you take on who does the leading.

OK. But is there any data for that? And if there isnīt we might as well postulate that they followed him. Why should they have done that? Is there any evidence to suggest they did? Isnīt Buckīs Row a strange place?

However they were happy to go with him, that suggests he was in control of himself and did not just attack at the first chance, he waited for the opportunity, when they was alone. so that sounds organised.

And if they were not happy, they went with him anyway. But in the case of Nichols?

However that may not be the case with Stride, which may have been an impulsive attack, that depends on which if any of the witnesses you accept.

It is not nice to cut peopleīs throats and kill them. How many killers of prostitutes were there in Whitechapel in September 1888?

You mention MJK and yes there appears to have been some planning, either he went with her, or he knew where a woman was on her own. That suggests a degree of pre-planning.

And on a special day.

However not withstanding the idea you have raised in the past of his taking a risk, he does leave himself with only one exit route ( I am not even considering that partition door) that does not sound like a rational course of action, he could easily have been seen leaving or even caught in the act, with no way of fleeing. that to me sound disorganised.

One must consider doorways marked out in house plans. The door between the shop and the backroom is visible there. If one does not "consider" them, one ignores the source. So if he was rational in other respects as you say, it would be more rational for him not to be left with just one exit route. So the clearest conclusion we can draw from an hypothesis of a rational killer, a human and not a tiger, is that he secures the way out - and in.

He is then organized all along. And wouldnīt he have wanted to be that on a special day?

Now I know you have suggested that he chose Hanbury street, and we have discussed that at length. however for this purpose that does not matter.

At 29 Hanbury street yes it was fairly secluded and off the street, however depending on what we accept as a TOD he coud have been there as it got light, this increased the chance of discovery.
Be it light of dark, he could not know, that someone would not look out of a back window, or come into the yard.
Indeed it is possible that Cadosch heard him and Chapman.

The site also had very limited escape routes.
That to me is not risk taking, it is not calculated, it is someone who having found himself in a secluded spot cannot resist the need to strike, irrespective of the fact that he may be seen or even caught in the act.

This is interesting. And what we must do here is to weigh the risk against the chance. Because that is what he must have done, considering he escaped. And that weighing therefore must have been calculating, rational and strategic.

That sounds very disorganised in this sense of the word.

As you see, you can look at this the other way too.

Hope you see what I meant when said I see bits of both in most of the attacks.

Steve

Yes, and thanks for very good answers. It is interesting to see that if you discuss them, there might be other perspectives. And what we need is the perspectives of the killer. Do we have that or are we just applying our own perspectives on the sources from 1888, that is the question.

Regards, Pierre