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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[pinkmoon]

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.

Quite possible Polly Nichols organs were not removed because of lack of time I think cross/lechmere must have missed our killer by a very short space of time.I think we all have to agree that whoever was doing this male,female or animal knew how to kill quickly and effeciently and I would say there must have been at least a basic understanding of anatomy.

[Natasha]

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.

Hi Abby

Will have to find out more about blotchy

[Natasha]

Quite possible Polly Nichols organs were not removed because of lack of time I think cross/lechmere must have missed our killer by a very short space of time.I think we all have to agree that whoever was doing this male,female or animal knew how to kill quickly and effeciently and I would say there must have been at least a basic understanding of anatomy.

Hi Pinkmoon

I agree, I'm not convinced about Cross/Lechmere being the ripper.

The ripper did indeed kill quickly and I feel he had thought long and hard about committing them.
I guess a new route that can be taken is to look at significant times before the murder in which triggered this killing spree. Maybe news reports may hold the key. Maybe the ripper suffered some kind of humiliation, maybe he was avenging something, was mentally ill etc.

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pinkmoon

I agree, I'm not convinced about Cross/Lechmere being the ripper.

The ripper did indeed kill quickly and I feel he had thought long and hard about committing them.
I guess a new route that can be taken is to look at significant times before the murder in which triggered this killing spree. Maybe news reports may hold the key. Maybe the ripper suffered some kind of humiliation, maybe he was avenging something, was mentally ill etc.

Hi Natasha,whoever was doing this certainly picked the right place to do it for want of a better word his victims were easy meat also the fact that potential witnesses might not be willing to come forward quite devious i didn't use the word clever because killing people isn't a very clever thing to do.

[sepiae]

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

Hi Lynn,

sorry for late reply, wasn't online yesterday.
And I will reply to both your replies a little more extensive a bit later, first one other and then I go a lil heap of work.

Until then just this one:
of course you needn't to accept anything just because 'it's written.' Even though not all of those writing about the sexual component in motivation where it comes to compulsive serial murderer [and I don't know of anyone who says this about all of them] shouldn't be written off as bloody fools just because you don't see it that way.

My question here wasn't about how much you don't like the idea. It was asking why exactly it appears as being so absurd to you.

More, in regards to the above later...

[sepiae]

more about organs

Hi Sepiae

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.

Hi Natasha,

late reply from me as I wasn't online.

Medical precision: keep in mind that for both the points you're making in that paragraph do not necessarily indicate a doctor [I use this for now as a collective term for anyone with medical background]: that the reproductive organs were a major, if not even the major aim appears beyond doubt, the uterus. One need to ask for motivation. There are a lot more possible motivations than a mere 'practical' one for collecting female reproductive organs - after all, he killed, and he applied more mutilations.
Yes, it is likely that he knew how to best do it, it is assumed that he slit the throats while the victims were already on the ground - if I'm not terribly mistaken this moment, the killer of Frances Coles later not only had her on the ground but face turned away from him, so he would avoid blood splatter on him. Again, knowing how to do it better or best is not reserved to doctors alone. It might simply come with experience. There's a long debate, also somewhere here on the boards, about the question whether he had been active before the murders we, loosely or with conviction, attribute to him. And about how closely or not any crimes before this would have resembled those we attribute.
My personal opinion is that there must have been acts of violence before, I even think murders - if we think from Polly Nichols onwards, although there is, the way I see it, progression, we have with Nichols already what can be called a complete MO and signature. It'd be like starting out of nowhere.

Eddowes/kidney: I wouldn't call it amateurish. Once again, think of how little time he had. I don't mean this in an admiring sense at all, I don't admire him. What I mean is that within such a short amount of time he managed a lot - I'd be surprised if everything is clean and perfect. I am surprised that it wasn't a complete mess-up, with the stress on up, if daring to assume his point of view [in attempt]. Whether he knew exactly what he was after or not is indeed a question. I'd say as far as the uterus is concerned, that'd be a yes. If the kidney was planned as well then he was indeed masterful - I tend to suspect that it wasn't. I would really like to know in what state the tissue all around the kidney was, whether it was removed with the fat that envelopes it or not.
Again, although I have a few reasons to doubt Trevor Merriott's theory about the organs actually having been removed later by someone else at the morgue, I still have to give it at least some credulity.
Lusk-kidney: be careful, it is not proven that the half kidney Lusk received was Eddowes' kidney, and thus it's not proven that it and the letter came from the killer. It is extremely tempting to think they came from him. Just as I would think it would be if I was of the type who'd want to send in a spoof letter with half a kidney from the jar in my profs' office...

Kelly: I actually suspect there is a pattern, both in itself and in context with the other murders. The differences you alert to have a lot to do with the different locality: more private, safer, more time. I don't have much to add, I mentioned that I'm one of the Escalationers [let's make up termina, shall we] As I mentioned, this also goes for the face.
The overall picture: One can read a lot into it. One can find a lot if one wants. There's also the possibility that it is what it looks like: an illustration of insanity. Mind you, perhaps not without order for him. And I mean something very complex here.
At times I think many ideas are produced leading to something very explicable - A.P. Wolf once opined [I don't know whether he still thinks so, it's been a while ago] that it was a botched abortion. Yes, one goes 'wot?', then briefly imagines how wrong exactly such a thing can go, before understanding that what's meant is the cover up of a botched abortion.
I can give you about a half dozen objections, listing why I think the idea is absurd, or you can wait a day or 2 more, because I got a little rambling that includes this in the opening.
There are more such hypotheses that do their best to move away from what is more uncomfortable, but what we've seen since numerous times to exist.

Reproductive and other organs still there, except for the heart:
it should be noted that they were not merely there. They've been handled. They've been placed. Not thrown about in the room, but handled and deliberately placed. Think about this aspect. I'd be interested in what you find as a possible answer.

[sepiae]

[mis]reading the entrails

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.

Cheers.
LC

Konnichiwa again,

just briefly, this one in:

aha, I think you misread me there:
I didn't ask about your suspect candidates; that is always an interesting question to ask everybody, and no, I don't follow you here. But chances that one doesn't are great, way too many suspects, hence many favourite suspects. I personally would like [I]not[I] to have a fav suspect. I felt better when I hadn't.
No, but I was asking strictly for motive. You answered it in respect of Catherine Eddowes. Since in your opinion her murder falls 'out of line', so to speak, the motive for Polly Nichols & Annie Chapman.
And as I said, because I'm simply asking myself what you think the motive was, following your postings.

Back in an hour or so [I hope] for the short version of my idea - I do have a rambling in work that includes this, but it was supposed to be about 5 pages, hence I'm currently on p.12, which will be too long for most folks, but I'll attach it to a post on the weekend.

[sepiae]

the laughing matter

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.

Hi Observer,

thanks for your concern but I try hard not to laugh about other's hypotheses. I didn't laugh about A.P. Wolf's idea of Mary Kelly's murder being [the cover up of] a botched abortion, although spontaneously a half dozen points entered my mind why the idea is not working [or, as I mouthed it that moment, why it's ridiculous], because I have a sneaking suspicion why such hypotheses come about, why the idea that this might just be what it looks like is battled again and again.

I only laughed once, during the One-on-One podcast with Stan Russo; but that was partly because Mr. Russo so vehemently violated his own demands he'd repeatedly forwarded to others in quite an obnoxious manner. That indeed makes it easier to laugh at a hypothesis that doesn't make sense from beginning to end.

But, to put your mind at rest, I'm always seated when at the comp. And increasingly so as a general mindset before the world

[lynn cates]

reliability

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

The problem with the "social scientific" approach is that a good bit of it is based upon the personal testimony of the "compulsive sexual serial killers."

But, as been observed, some--like Bundy--said pretty much whatever the interviewer wished to hear. Similarly, another such killer placed the tally at extreme values. Why? He felt important.

I am suggesting that such "procedures" are unreliable.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

wandering lunatic

Hello (again) Sepiae. Thanks.

Polly and Annie, in my estimate, fell victim to a wandering lunatic who carried knives in an apron. Poor devil was altogether delusional.

He was also quite violent and tried to strangle his wife.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

No laughing matter if truth be known

Hi Observer,

thanks for your concern but I try hard not to laugh about other's hypotheses. I didn't laugh about A.P. Wolf's idea of Mary Kelly's murder being [the cover up of] a botched abortion, although spontaneously a half dozen points entered my mind why the idea is not working [or, as I mouthed it that moment, why it's ridiculous], because I have a sneaking suspicion why such hypotheses come about, why the idea that this might just be what it looks like is battled again and again.

I only laughed once, during the One-on-One podcast with Stan Russo; but that was partly because Mr. Russo so vehemently violated his own demands he'd repeatedly forwarded to others in quite an obnoxious manner. That indeed makes it easier to laugh at a hypothesis that doesn't make sense from beginning to end.

But, to put your mind at rest, I'm always seated when at the comp. And increasingly so as a general mindset before the world

Hi Sepiae

It gladdens me when you reveal that that you are always seated whilst at the computer. However, one more point, if (and it's a big if) Mr Cates reveals his motive for the Nichols, and Chapman murders, make sure you are not eating a little snack at the computer, I would be horrified if you choked whilst laughing. When out driving, banish the thoughts of Mr Cates revelations (should he provide them)from your mind, as you might end up swerving off the road. Avoid all these activities(and any others you feel appropriate) until all the laughing fits have died down, only then will you be safe to carry on your life as normal. We don't want you becoming another victim of Jack The Ripper, which, in effect would be the case should your demise be caused by any of the potential accidents listed above.

Just to add Sepiae I like your style, you get straight to the point, and ask the important questions, keep up the good work, you have Mr Cates on the spot. I believe Mr Cates is a little embarrassed however to reveal his thoughts on a possible motive for the Nichols, and Chapman murders. I believe it involves a giraffe, no, that was someone else, hold on, yes, a sheep, that's it, a sheep.

You take care now.

Regards

Observer