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

[Observer]

Spiffing !!!

But I'm not surprised that these simple facts and inferences could be lost on someone who thinks the ripper was a combination of a bat **** crazy butcher and some kind of conspiracy

Oh oh ! Now you're talking!

[sepiae]

Hey Lynn,

If not anger, then what was Jack's motive? These didn't appear to be sexually motivated crimes. The manner in which the women were eviscerated and the targeting of the genital areas implies to me that Jack was pursuing a vendetta against the drabs of Whitechapel... probably for giving him syphilis.

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.

Greetz,

sepy

[sepiae]

motivation cont.

Hello Harry. Thanks.

"If not anger, then what was Jack's motive?"

Not sure why we are talking about a single bloke, but, even so, there are multitudes of possibilities.

Cheers.
LC

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

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

So what is your hypothesis on who the ripper was, his motive etc?

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.

[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

[lynn cates]

Which?

Hello (again) Sepiae. Thanks.

"what are your ideas about motive?"

Concerning which murder?

Cheers.
LC

[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?

[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...

[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]

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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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?