If a doctor was responsible for the murders.......................

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

I also think Kelly is the key. Something doesn't add up about her murder. There is something dodgy about Barnett (or at least Kelly's murder in general), I feel he didn't appear too upset, he was quick to identify Kelly rather then question weather it was her (I say this because if Barnett did love Kelly, then I'm sure he would be less inclined to believe it was Kelly). There wasn't much left of her, and the fact that he identified by her ears (they were cut and I think that would make them a little difficult to id) and her eyes, well blue eyes are not a rare colour. That is why I thought maybe there was more then meets the eye when I wrote my post: murder what murder. As you say Barnett had an alibi, I'm not sure about weather it was genuine or not

Hutchinson: well there is something fishy about him. I mean maybe he was in fact someone else, someone who didn't want everyone to know that he was near Miller's Court. Maybe Hutchinson was a pseudonym.

Blotchy: need to look into that, it is funny that he never came forward, could he actually be 'Hutchinson'?

Yeah I agree that public perception of the fiend of Whitechapel played an important role for JTR's ego.

Hi Natasha
I don't totally rule out Barnett. Alibis have been known to be false and being the recent ex boyfriend of the murder victim would automatically make him a suspect. And of course her heart was missing, which I am sure you can see the implication there.

Re hutch:Actually there are people who think hutch was a fake name for someone else, like Joseph Fleming, for example, who was her boyfriend before Barnett.

I doubt blotchy could also be hutch, mainly because the description of blotchy given by the witness was very unique-he was described as having a carrotty mustache and blotches on his face. I'm sure someone would have noticed the similarity between blotchy and hutch had they been the same person.

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha, hi everyone,

here's why I find it rather unlikely that a doctor was the perp:

- the series began without him taking organs [I'm just being this bold now, for the sake of it]. The whole idea came about with the removal of organs. Although the reason here for was the question whether this was done with surgical skill or not, the very issue of the removal probably played into it - i certainly does today. Organs - uhm, doctor. So the doctor was apparently 'just' mad with the victim/s prior to organ removal.

- skill, precision of cuts was and is subject for debate. That there was debate at the time makes it clear that nothing about was clear; and these were the folks who were present. Either it was precedence lacking, or it didn't correspond. Bit of a weak point, but if medical skills would shine out of the murders, wouldn't there perhaps be more agreement about it?
Actually, on second thought, maybe not.

- posted this one accidentally under the wrong topic once before:
with Eddowes the question suddenly looks nearly insignificant.
10 minutes in darkness, and yet he managed, perhaps less well than before, but he did. When Trevor Marriott documented his surgical demonstration in order to imply that the organs were removed rather in the morgue by other people - he'd still have to explain to me why only with those [although, to be fair, perhaps there were others] - the thing that he demonstrated to me, basically, was that good surgeons cannot reproduce the act today with good light. That all he showed me. If I maintain, despite what he intends for me to accept, that it was JtR who removed the organs, then the question whether he was a highly skilled medical doctor or a clumsy amateur butcher becomes, with Eddowes absolutely irrelevant - the circumstances make both equally possible: extremely tight time frame, hardly any light.
A person who has difficulty distinguishing circles from ovals, give him and the person who has no such problems 10 seconds to pick the 5 cards with the ovals from 20 - the one without impairment is clearly better. Now you say, 'great, let's try that again, 10 seconds, but now you do it in total darkness.'
Both the impaired and the unimpaired stand the same chances.

The medical skills before Eddowes? That'd be only Chapman. And I can't see it.
After?
Mary Kelly's state doesn't require medical skills.

So one could carry the question further: was JtR a gynaecologist ?
Well, 'everything's possible', as they say...
Can't disprove it, nothing to indicate otherwise...

Yes, but not really anything specific that does either.

Thoughts?

Hi Sepiae

No organs taken at the start of the serious of murders: You make a good point about the organs

Medical precision: I think the killer has some medical knowledge, The killer kept going for the same areas, reproduction organs etc. Also the fact that there was a lack of blood splatters indicates that the ripper knew how to kill the victim without making too much of a mess.

People say that Eddowes death seems rather amateurish, judging by the hack job that was inflicted, but there is mention of 'careful' extraction of the kidney.
Maybe the killer knew exactly what he was going for and had to get the organ as quickly as possible seeing as he didn't have an abundance of time. The kidney seems to have been an important factor in the ripper's plan, after all it was apparently sent to Lusk and the killer knew exactly what the organ was.

Kelly's murder doesn't seem to have much of a pattern. There was splashes on the wall, but no splashes at the scenes of the crimes of the other victims. Random cuts to the arms and legs (although maybe the killer was trying to obscure her identity maybe she had moles etc, birthmarks). The heart was absent from the scene. The reproduction organs were still there. Kelly's face was completely torn apart, not just her nose.

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha
Thanks!

I view the numerous suspects with varying degrees of scepticism but that being said I think that Mary Kelly might be the key to this as it seems she may have known her killer. The witnesses describe her with being with four different men that night and I think that there is a good chance one of them might be her killer:

Barnett: had an alibi and was cleared
Blotchy: last credible suspect seen with Kelly. Never came forward.
Hutch: dodgy sighting
Astracahn man: possibly fictitious character invented by hutch.

I view Blotchy and hutch as possible suspects 1 and 2 and then falling off considerably a group of other viable candidates- chapman, bury, Kelly and Kosminski. This second tier of suspects were all at least persons of interest at the time.

Amongst the third tier of suspects, I include persons who, as I said, we're familiar with Mary Kelly-Fleming, McCarthy and bowyer, as well as long shot police suspects Druitt and tumblety.

Now all that being said, I have to reiterate that I think that they are all weak suspects and that my top candidates are the least weak of the lot.


As to motive, I think his motive is probably similar to most post mortem mutilating serial killers. He got some kind of pleasure or release from killing and cutting open women and there was probably a sexual component to it. I think there is a good chance he ate and or masturbated with the organs he brought home and that there was possibly a secondary pleasure he derived from the "chase" and the notoriety he received from public, police and press.

Hi Abby

I also think Kelly is the key. Something doesn't add up about her murder. There is something dodgy about Barnett (or at least Kelly's murder in general), I feel he didn't appear too upset, he was quick to identify Kelly rather then question weather it was her (I say this because if Barnett did love Kelly, then I'm sure he would be less inclined to believe it was Kelly). There wasn't much left of her, and the fact that he identified by her ears (they were cut and I think that would make them a little difficult to id) and her eyes, well blue eyes are not a rare colour. That is why I thought maybe there was more then meets the eye when I wrote my post: murder what murder. As you say Barnett had an alibi, I'm not sure about weather it was genuine or not

Hutchinson: well there is something fishy about him. I mean maybe he was in fact someone else, someone who didn't want everyone to know that he was near Miller's Court. Maybe Hutchinson was a pseudonym.

Blotchy: need to look into that, it is funny that he never came forward, could he actually be 'Hutchinson'?

Yeah I agree that public perception of the fiend of Whitechapel played an important role for JTR's ego.

[Observer]

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

Let's try this. If I were asked whether a love of curry dishes were involved in the killings, I could only stare blankly and reply that I have no REASON to believe that.

Similarly with the sexual angle. Just because some bloody fool social scientist wrote a "scholarly paper" for tenure does not indicate I must accept that rot. By the way, a good many of my college/university colleagues fall into this category.

Cheers.
LC

Does ridiculing scholarly papers as rot constitute being a troll? Does the suggestion that serial killer discourse here in this forum should be done away with constitute being a troll? It's no different to we who ridicule your wacky theories. We are trolls as a result of such actions it appears.

[Observer]

I have little remaining doubt that the first two were killed by one of the wandering lunatics of Whitechapel. Best guess is Jacob Isenschmid who ticks practically every relevant box.

You did not answer the question. Why did Isenschmid kill Nichols, and Chapman? Ticks all the boxes? It's said Isenschmid's wife believed he would harm only her. Lets face it, Isenschmid was all mouth, plenty of threats, no action. Is he on record as ever harming anyone?

[tji]

Hi Fish

If you´ve got it, flaunt it, Tracy!

My mantra exactly

Hi fish, tji and Lc
No not at all that wacky.

Hi Abby

I, like Fish, was just teasing, no offence meant at all. I don't really ascribe to the dates meaning anything but I wouldn't mock someone because they did.

Tracy

[lynn cates]

to curry one's favour

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

Let's try this. If I were asked whether a love of curry dishes were involved in the killings, I could only stare blankly and reply that I have no REASON to believe that.

Similarly with the sexual angle. Just because some bloody fool social scientist wrote a "scholarly paper" for tenure does not indicate I must accept that rot. By the way, a good many of my college/university colleagues fall into this category.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Lynn,

and this is by no means meant in a sarcastic way, I'd really would like to know:
what are your ideas about motive?
More concrete than above. I'm asking myself that for a while...

greetz,

sepy

Word of advice Sepiae, in the event Mr Cates reveals his thoughts on why he believes Isenschmidt murdered Nichols, and Chapman, make sure you're sitting down, don't want you falling over laughing.

[lynn cates]

reply

Buenos Dias Sepiae. Gracias.

"Each one [if you will]."

Not a problem. But, if you will permit, why not deal with the "Evans three" first? (So called, given Stewart Evans's dictum that, if called upon to swear, he would say three died by the same hand. Those three are Polly, Annie and Kate.)

I have little remaining doubt that the first two were killed by one of the wandering lunatics of Whitechapel. Best guess is Jacob Isenschmid who ticks practically every relevant box.

Kate, I think, was killed by someone she and John were bleeding. Recall her effects were rifled and strewn.

At any rate, the killer tried--and failed--to approximate the first two killings.

"Afterwards you might humor me, if you wish, and entertain the remote possibility that some of them might have been committed by one perp?"

Of course. Polly and Annie, same hand. No problem.

"I mean it, I'm being serious."

Without any doubt. I've been around the boards long enough to distinguish a serious, thoughtful chap from a troll. If I thought you were NOT serious, I should neglect to reply--as would befit a troll.

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

I got an axe for this hair...

"I'd say you'd still have to make the case if you say it doesn't apply."

Indeed? And I'd say that the burden of proof, as always, rests with the assertor of the positive member.

Cheers.
LC

Ah, salut, overlooked this one at first...

Ok, you'll either accuse me of hair-splitting or of, well, being wrong:

If you say you're positive that something is not so, you need to make the point about being positive.
Sure enough, one cannot prove a negative. But if you're saying you're positive about it - and this is how it sounds like - you more or less claim you did.
In the end I'm asking for a reason:
what makes you think that the murders [each one, or just one, or all, in anticipation of part of your answer, phewww, ] weren't sexually motivated?

I can come after my part of the burden, if you want to know.
But not now, now I gotta rush, my apologies.

Greetz

s.

[Observer]

Hi Harry, and also Hi Lynn,

to both of you, here's some more of the 'scientific rot', if you will, but sexually motivated crime d o e s n o t necessarily mean
- sexual activity on behalf of the killer during the murder [masturbation]
- arousal as in getting a boner
not even
- sexually fantasizing about it afterwards

I can understand if you don't like the idea. But 'sexually motivated crime' is a term used in forensic psychiatry - whether you like/accept forensic psychiatry or not is incidental here; it's a term from this field. And it does not mean the above listed HAS to be present.

Whether the term applies to JtR or not is another question. I'd say you'd still have to make the case if you say it doesn't apply.

Spot on Sepiae. Connection is invariably absent in such cases. Believe me though, you're wasting your time enlightening these fellas.

Regards

Observer

[sepiae]

Thou dost not disappoint

Hello (again) Sepiae. Thanks.

"what are your ideas about motive?"

Concerning which murder?

Cheers.
LC

Hola,

each one [if you will].

Afterwards you might humor me, if you wish, and entertain the remote possibility that some of them might have been committed by one perp?

Or pick one. Seriously.
I mean it, I'm being serious

But I'll be off in a few...

[sepiae]

Doc or No Doc

Hi Natasha, hi everyone,

here's why I find it rather unlikely that a doctor was the perp:

- the series began without him taking organs [I'm just being this bold now, for the sake of it]. The whole idea came about with the removal of organs. Although the reason here for was the question whether this was done with surgical skill or not, the very issue of the removal probably played into it - i certainly does today. Organs - uhm, doctor. So the doctor was apparently 'just' mad with the victim/s prior to organ removal.

- skill, precision of cuts was and is subject for debate. That there was debate at the time makes it clear that nothing about was clear; and these were the folks who were present. Either it was precedence lacking, or it didn't correspond. Bit of a weak point, but if medical skills would shine out of the murders, wouldn't there perhaps be more agreement about it?
Actually, on second thought, maybe not.

- posted this one accidentally under the wrong topic once before:
with Eddowes the question suddenly looks nearly insignificant.
10 minutes in darkness, and yet he managed, perhaps less well than before, but he did. When Trevor Marriott documented his surgical demonstration in order to imply that the organs were removed rather in the morgue by other people - he'd still have to explain to me why only with those [although, to be fair, perhaps there were others] - the thing that he demonstrated to me, basically, was that good surgeons cannot reproduce the act today with good light. That all he showed me. If I maintain, despite what he intends for me to accept, that it was JtR who removed the organs, then the question whether he was a highly skilled medical doctor or a clumsy amateur butcher becomes, with Eddowes absolutely irrelevant - the circumstances make both equally possible: extremely tight time frame, hardly any light.
A person who has difficulty distinguishing circles from ovals, give him and the person who has no such problems 10 seconds to pick the 5 cards with the ovals from 20 - the one without impairment is clearly better. Now you say, 'great, let's try that again, 10 seconds, but now you do it in total darkness.'
Both the impaired and the unimpaired stand the same chances.

The medical skills before Eddowes? That'd be only Chapman. And I can't see it.
After?
Mary Kelly's state doesn't require medical skills.

So one could carry the question further: was JtR a gynaecologist ?
Well, 'everything's possible', as they say...
Can't disprove it, nothing to indicate otherwise...

Yes, but not really anything specific that does either.

Thoughts?

[lynn cates]

Which?

Hello (again) Sepiae. Thanks.

"what are your ideas about motive?"

Concerning which murder?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

onus

Hello Sepiae. Thanks. Appreciate the etymology.

"Whether the term applies to JtR or not is another question."

And THAT is my main point.

"I'd say you'd still have to make the case if you say it doesn't apply."

Indeed? And I'd say that the burden of proof, as always, rests with the assertor of the positive member.

Cheers.
LC