Just my theory.

[Mike J. G.]

There have been many cases of serial killers who were certifiably insane who were well enough of their surroundings to not get caught in the act. Going back to Richard Chase, he believed the government was turning his blood to powder. He mutilated one woman, went into her yard and collected dog feces to stuff in her mouth. Then at his last murder/mutilation, he fled from the scene when a 6 year old knocked at the door. So are you suggesting that he was NOT insane because he was aware enough to flee the scene to avoid detection?? You seem to be under the impression that the only way JtR could've been seriously mentally ill is if he was found roaming the streets like a stereotypical "raving lunatic". The study of known serial killers doesn't bear that out at all. Even contemporary police who knew next to nothing about mental illness compared to what we now know were in pretty much universal agreement that they'd never have got a death sentence on JtR even if they'd caught him.

If you've worked with schizophrenics and other mentally ill people, then you understand that schizophrenia and bipolar are defined by times of lucidity and outbreaks of mania, right? And you're also aware that there may be no one more manipulative than a mentally ill person. There is no reason to believe that a schizophrenic psychopath wouldn't be able to commit these crimes. Because we know for fact that there have been many many mentally ill, including schizophrenic, serial killers.

I didn't say that murders never happened. What I said that by today's standards, random murders were rare in Victorian era London. That's not even an opinion, that's a fact. Murders were not overly common even in the biggest city in the world, and most of them were domestic murders. Random murders were NOT common, the year 1888 was an outlier not a typical year. But again, if these same MO "double events" were as common as you suggest please provide the proof. 1878-1898 is a 20 year period, shouldn't be hard to find them if they happened.

Do we know Stride's murder was the same MO? Um yes, we sure do...a prostitute killed in a dark corner/alley from behind by a right handed killer with a hard slash to the throat. Yes, that is literally the same MO as all the JtR victims (except Kelly was possibly killed from the front since she was lying on a bed)

Why is it nonsensical to think me, or any other random person, could identify internal organs and remove some in a frenzy? Do you have any evidence that JtR was after SPECIFIC organs? In one case he took a uterus. In another, I believe it was only a section of a uterus and a kidney. In Kelly's case, he took the heart. So yes, any person who could stomach it could open up a body and take random organs in a frenzy. In all likelihood, he was looking for something that looked cookable and edible, which further points to a serious mental illness.

When you say the opinions of the people of the time don't indicate they thought JtR was a lunatic, whose opinions are you talking about specifically? Because the main players like Anderson, macnaghten, Swanson, Littlechild, etc etc never agreed on much but they all pretty well roundly agreed that JtR was insane and there would never be a death sentence passed.

Tbf, I'm not ruling it out entirely that he was a certified nutjob, he was obviously a nut, but from what we know, and what was suspected at the time, it seems to me to be the less likely scenario.

I'm not saying he escaped therefore he wasn't insane, what I'm doing is arguing that the man at least had the knowledge to understand what was happening, and that his actions imply a modicum of effort and planning, which is my argument against your idea of him being a chancer running on luck.

I feel, like many others before me, that the killer was savvy enough to do certain things well, which lead me to believe he wasn't doing it by chance, and that he'd had an idea of what his plan was and how he was to see it through. It is my argument that he was at least, to some degree, using a methodology.

I'm not saying that he should've been wandering around, drooling and raving, but that the idea of a swift and calculated blitz-attacker does not jibe with a schizoid who is running on pure luck and lunacy.

I don't doubt that mentally-ill people can and do commit crimes, but what I do doubt is that they commit crimes such as the ones seen in Whitechapel, crimes which all followed a pattern and a formula. Had a raving madman been the culprit, why would we not see a varying display of murders, with differing methods and instruments used?

It doesn't take long on Google to see that murders in and around London were not all that rare. I myself have a book on Liverpool murders and Manchester murders from the same period, and it's not a rarity at all. The types of murders that we see in this case are quite something else, though. But a slit throat does not make a Ripper murder.

I think a lot of the consensus was that Jack was rightfully mad, I mean, he wasn't your average pie and chip man, was he? But I think there's a difference between raving madman and certifiable schizoid. I don't think the medicos and the investigators of the time were drawing a fine enough line between the two.

It is nonsensical to assume that you can just open a person up and know where to locate specific organs and how best to remove them in a short amount of time. I don't even know why that is a point of debate, tbh. You're making it out like it was just a casual thing for any madman to do, to be able to go into a body and locate a specific organ and remove it in a speedy manner. It is more than likely that the person doing that would know what he was after and how to best obtain it in a short amount of time.

You're more than welcome to your own theories, as am I, but I'm not convinced that you're close to the money.

[Mike J. G.]

There's never going to be a real carbon copy MO amongst serial killers. But by and large, yes, there crimes were very similar. The connection of the insane serial killer being doing things that don't make logical sense. For instance...Chase stuffs dog feces down a victim's throat...JtR cuts off a victim's breast and puts it under her head like a pillow. These actions aren't "the same", but they ARE "the same" in that they are the illogical actions of an insane killer.

How many breasts did Jack cut off and stuff beneath a victim's pillow, though?

There are several victims who do not look like what we saw with Kelly. It can be argued that he simply had more time and more cover, and that's a reasonable argument, but it's simply that and no more.

There's literally not enough for anyone of us to go on and make assertions about.

If you're suggesting that this madman was running on pure luck, then he lucked out on the torsos as well, and the other possible non-canonicals . This was a man borne of the luck of the Irish.

[Harry D]

People have this image that a schizo killer must have been a raving, frothing at the mouth lunatic. There's still a survival instinct. When one of the neighbours knocked the door, Richard Chase hightailed it from the scene of the crime. He didn't invite them in to admire his handiwork.

After Robert Napper murdered Rachel Nickell in a public park, he calmly walked away and disappeared into obscurity. Maybe it was dumb luck, maybe it wasn't, but still no one noticed him in broad daylight. Police also found a London A-Z map that contained detailed records of his potential murder/rape sites. This shows there were organised elements to Napper's behaviour.

Also, wasn't there some Amish guy who murdered his wife, dissected her and took out all her organs? He was schizo too, if I recall.

[Pontius2000]

Tbf, I'm not ruling it out entirely that he was a certified nutjob, he was obviously a nut, but from what we know, and what was suspected at the time, it seems to me to be the less likely scenario.

I'm not saying he escaped therefore he wasn't insane, what I'm doing is arguing that the man at least had the knowledge to understand what was happening, and that his actions imply a modicum of effort and planning, which is my argument against your idea of him being a chancer running on luck.

I feel, like many others before me, that the killer was savvy enough to do certain things well, which lead me to believe he wasn't doing it by chance, and that he'd had an idea of what his plan was and how he was to see it through. It is my argument that he was at least, to some degree, using a methodology.

I'm not saying that he should've been wandering around, drooling and raving, but that the idea of a swift and calculated blitz-attacker does not jibe with a schizoid who is running on pure luck and lunacy.

I don't doubt that mentally-ill people can and do commit crimes, but what I do doubt is that they commit crimes such as the ones seen in Whitechapel, crimes which all followed a pattern and a formula. Had a raving madman been the culprit, why would we not see a varying display of murders, with differing methods and instruments used?

It doesn't take long on Google to see that murders in and around London were not all that rare. I myself have a book on Liverpool murders and Manchester murders from the same period, and it's not a rarity at all. The types of murders that we see in this case are quite something else, though. But a slit throat does not make a Ripper murder.

I think a lot of the consensus was that Jack was rightfully mad, I mean, he wasn't your average pie and chip man, was he? But I think there's a difference between raving madman and certifiable schizoid. I don't think the medicos and the investigators of the time were drawing a fine enough line between the two.

It is nonsensical to assume that you can just open a person up and know where to locate specific organs and how best to remove them in a short amount of time. I don't even know why that is a point of debate, tbh. You're making it out like it was just a casual thing for any madman to do, to be able to go into a body and locate a specific organ and remove it in a speedy manner. It is more than likely that the person doing that would know what he was after and how to best obtain it in a short amount of time.

You're more than welcome to your own theories, as am I, but I'm not convinced that you're close to the money.

The majority of police whose opinions were on record were in agreement that there would never be a death sentence. In other words, they were in agreement that the killer was insane.

To open a body and take SPECIFIC organs? So then you're of the opinion, which is completely unproven, that JtR targeted SPECIFIC organs. There is no evidence of this at all considering he took different organs from different victims

[Pontius2000]

How many breasts did Jack cut off and stuff beneath a victim's pillow, though?

There are several victims who do not look like what we saw with Kelly. It can be argued that he simply had more time and more cover, and that's a reasonable argument, but it's simply that and no more.

There's literally not enough for anyone of us to go on and make assertions about.

If you're suggesting that this madman was running on pure luck, then he lucked out on the torsos as well, and the other possible non-canonicals . This was a man borne of the luck of the Irish.

I'm suggesting JtR was running on luck on the torsos and non-C5? Where have I suggested that?

The torso murders, if they were all even "murders" exhibit a "plan". The JtR murders don't. You seem to be of the opinion that getting home without getting caught is proof of a "plan" because no insane killer could possess the instinct for self preservation. We'll just have to disagree on that.

[caz]

People have this image that a schizo killer must have been a raving, frothing at the mouth lunatic. There's still a survival instinct. When one of the neighbours knocked the door, Richard Chase hightailed it from the scene of the crime. He didn't invite them in to admire his handiwork.

After Robert Napper murdered Rachel Nickell in a public park, he calmly walked away and disappeared into obscurity. Maybe it was dumb luck, maybe it wasn't, but still no one noticed him in broad daylight. Police also found a London A-Z map that contained detailed records of his potential murder/rape sites. This shows there were organised elements to Napper's behaviour.

Also, wasn't there some Amish guy who murdered his wife, dissected her and took out all her organs? He was schizo too, if I recall.

Napper's crimes are interesting in this context and Mike J. G. would do well to look him up.

He has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia as well as Asperger's syndrome.

In July 1992, he stabbed Rachel Nickell forty-nine times in an outdoor location. He was questioned about unsolved attacks on other women during the same year, but was eliminated from inquiries. So he must have been able to give a good and coherent account of himself when cornered and perfectly aware of the consequences if he screwed up, even if he didn't personally think he'd done anything 'wrong'.

In November 1993, Napper stabbed Samantha Bisset in her neck and chest, killing her, in her own home, then sexually assaulted and smothered her little girl. He also mutilated Samantha's body, taking away body parts as trophies. The crime scene was reportedly so horrific that the police photographer had to take two years off work after witnessing it.

There are clear parallels here with the Whitechapel murders of Tabram and Kelly.

I also agree with everything Pontius2000 has written regarding Stride and Eddowes. In addition, there are enough modern examples of double-eventing serial killers [including Ted Bundy and Levi Bellfield] to inform our views on this. Certainly the Saucy Jacky postcard author recognised the phenomenon back in 1888, whether he was a hoaxer, a killer or both.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

I think JTR wasn't one man, but two. A killing team. Two males competing with each other.
Apparently, the team breaks up when one of them goes too far -even for them.
Wouldn't Mary Kelly be such a victim?

If more than one person were involved, I'm convinced that we'd know who "Jack the Ripper" was. I think he'd have been arrested, executed. And he'd be far less interesting.

Further, I don't think that anyone even suspected the killer. I feel as if someone had suspected him, that someone may not have gone to the police, but they'd have told someone something. And THAT someone would have told someone and so on and son on......until someone was sufficiently motived (by a desire for justice, fame, money, etc.) to pass the word to someone who was in a position to expose/arrest the killer.

[GUT]

If more than one person were involved, I'm convinced that we'd know who "Jack the Ripper" was. I think he'd have been arrested, executed. And he'd be far less interesting.

Further, I don't think that anyone even suspected the killer. I feel as if someone had suspected him, that someone may not have gone to the police, but they'd have told someone something. And THAT someone would have told someone and so on and son on......until someone was sufficiently motived (by a desire for justice, fame, money, etc.) to pass the word to someone who was in a position to expose/arrest the killer.

Yep. U.N. Known top suspect by miles, toss in the real possibility of getting some money out of it and .....???????

[Mike J. G.]

Napper's crimes are interesting in this context and Mike J. G. would do well to look him up.

He has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia as well as Asperger's syndrome.

In July 1992, he stabbed Rachel Nickell forty-nine times in an outdoor location. He was questioned about unsolved attacks on other women during the same year, but was eliminated from inquiries. So he must have been able to give a good and coherent account of himself when cornered and perfectly aware of the consequences if he screwed up, even if he didn't personally think he'd done anything 'wrong'.

In November 1993, Napper stabbed Samantha Bisset in her neck and chest, killing her, in her own home, then sexually assaulted and smothered her little girl. He also mutilated Samantha's body, taking away body parts as trophies. The crime scene was reportedly so horrific that the police photographer had to take two years off work after witnessing it.

There are clear parallels here with the Whitechapel murders of Tabram and Kelly.

I also agree with everything Pontius2000 has written regarding Stride and Eddowes. In addition, there are enough modern examples of double-eventing serial killers [including Ted Bundy and Levi Bellfield] to inform our views on this. Certainly the Saucy Jacky postcard author recognised the phenomenon back in 1888, whether he was a hoaxer, a killer or both.

Love,

Caz
X

The main gist of my comments, which seem to have been oddly overlooked, were in response to the idea that the killer was half-assing his way through life and was just running on pure luck.

In reality, this seems very unlikely, and there are a number of good reasons to think he was making plans, whether thorough or not, and that he had an idea of what he wanted to do and how to go about doing it, which all suggest that he wasn't making it up as he went.

I don't subscribe to the idea that he was just running on "dumb luck", and I'm not sure what kind of evidence there is to suggest that he was.

I also don't see what kind of evidence there is to suggest he was schizophrenic. We may as well conclude that he was a Bolton Wanderers fan and enjoyed playing Scrabble.

[Mike J. G.]

If you go beyond the C5, and you're going with the idea that the killer was running on luck, then you've got a few other murders that you have to conclude were also down to sheer dumb luck in terms of their execution and the evasion thereof.

With each murder, it becomes more and more problematic if you conclude that they were committed by a person throwing caution to the wind and basically running blind into the night.

The chances of such a thing happening and the killer repeatedly "lucking out" are slim, and they'd get slimmer and slimmer with each killing.

I therefore do not agree that this was the case, and I'm not sure there's evidence to suggest that it was.

The idea that there was no surgical skill whatsoever is also a bit flawed, imo. I'm not necessarily of the opinion that he was a doctor, but to say that he was able to just dig in and find what he wanted without effort is quite fantastical, as is the idea that Pontius could also just go in and do the same in a hypothetical scenario. There are enough people on record discussing how less-than-trivial the postmortem work actually was, in the state of the lighting and the short space of time.

All of these things combined imply that he wasn't an average bloke lucking out time and again. If he was, I'd imagine that he'd have a wonderful time in the current day, winning the lottery on a semi-regular basis.

That being said, I don't think the killer was remarkable, in any fantastic way, but I do think he had a good idea of what he wanted to do, he made plans on how to go about doing it, and he did it well and was never caught.