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

[Wickerman]

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.

"Placing" also appears to be an aspect in the murders of both Chapman & Eddowes.

[sepiae]

You are aware Sepiae that Isenschmid was incarcerated on the night Kate Eddowes was murdered?

Yes, but Lynn doesn't hold him responsible for that murder.

I never eat.

[sepiae]

wandering lunatic's reliability

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.

----

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

Hi Lynn,

I'll try and reply to both your replies together first.

1st the wandering poor devil. On the surface it appears you again stated who, not so much why. Unless you suggest delusion as a motive. I do think you must have something else beside violent tendencies and a description of being delusional, as the former fits quite a number of suspects and the latter in itself does not imply murder. Both are not a motive, it's an assessment, a description.
That is if being delusional is not enough of an explanation for you. If it is, we have a number of problems:
again, there's a high number of people one can with confidence describe as being delusional, and one can also be confident about enough people fitting the description being around back then. Hence, if you suspect someone to be a murderer and bring this into context with him being delusional, you'd have to elaborate. Do you mean he was what we'd today call psychotic? Problems with that, I think you'd be fast in disagreeing with such a diagnosis - a psychosis shows dramatically - of course one needs to first assume that it is kept hidden. Again and again we meet people in this Cast of Thousand, as Chris Scott called it, who were admitted to asylums, and that's just those we know of. I doubt that someone who's disturbance lay this open could have, say, got Annie Chapman to walk with him into a courtyard.
This because you gave delusion as a factor - I assume that you meant it as a prominent factor.If you say he was indeed able to keep it hidden, and if he kept it hidden over a time entailing at least two murders, you basically have what we call a serial killer.
The motive is still missing - unless, again an unless, the wandering lunatic doesn't need a motive. Again and again murders like these are called, particularly after first discovery in the media, a 'senseless killing,' and 'murder without motive.' Because no direct connection between murderer and victim can be made, mainly.
The more appropriate way of speaking is 'a murder for which we do not [yet] know the motive'.
In order to say there is no motive, and all there is is the perp to be mad one first has to believe that there is such a thing as effect without cause.
The motive of the 'mad murderer' is - to us - a madder one. A lot more difficult to find and comprehend - for sure. To avoid this by saying there is no motive, and period, that's too shallow, and can be proven wrong.

Social scientific procedures:
First of all, and splitting up the term you used, I cannot think of an approach better suited to just anything - anything at all - than the scientific. If we disagree about that one, we'll not agree on anything.
As for putting serial murderer into a social context - I wonder how this could be avoided [and, naturally, why]. There is, again, not a smell of a trace of a cause for a reason to assume a serial killer pops up out of nowhere. Once more an unless, unless one is ready to believe in the natural newborn killer baby.
To what you assert in context with Bundy- and other interviews. You're of course quite right that we shouldn't take those fellows' word for granted. Bundy, Unterweger... quite a lot to say, those men. Bundy's stating his exposure of pornography, for instance, was very much feeding into the beliefs of the one who interviewed him right then.
So no. One shouldn't base a whole theory just on what those guys have to say. I won't. I'm sorry, I'm not that stupid. And neither are quite a lot of forensic psychologists, police officers, authors and more from the whole array of people who wanted to get an idea about the Why. You said, a good bit of it is based upon what the killer said. Of course what they say should be recorded. Should be noted. Should be assessed. Should be judged. And it was, and not in the one-sided manner you seem to suggest. Quite a bit of conclusion can also be reached precisely from the yarn they spin. But most, in the end, from what these men did.
The definition 'sexually motivated serial murder' was not one dutifully repeated from the lips of the perpetrators. And again - I know you know it, as you implied in a previous reply, but keep in mind that others read these posts and some of them might take terms like these too verbatim - it does not always directly translate into sexual activity [if you ask me, never, as I think of sex as something healthy; if any such activity was involved it was not healthy]. It is not even one that applies to all compulsive serial murders.
When we stand to seek the perp, it's repeated and presumably compulsive murder against the other sex [first of all. That already implies the 'sexually motivated' bit]. Depending on what we can see in the details of the murder -
!! I claim with confidence that not only I'm convinced there's always a motive for a murder, I'm also convinced there's always a motive for the details!!
- we might conclude that the nature of these details imply a sexual facet as their own. That's basically it. The term stems from the investigators and collaborating psychiatrists/psychologists, in hindsight of the murders. Not from the killer.
And the conclusion is really not that huge a jump - how much of what we do has to do with our sexuality.

I know you have your theory, and I agree, with your theory it might not fit, might not even fit at all.

I can't see your theory yet, as I can't see motive wit Polly Nichols & Annie Chapman in what you said, and I'd also need more to have me convinced that Catherine Eddowes was murdered for the reason you stated. I'm trying, but I'd need more.

If, as an attempt, you might be willing to try on the idea that what we're looking at might indeed be serial murder, as vaguely [I know, but this post IS already long] described above - won't you say there are details that fit?

Looking forward

[Observer]

Baaaahhhhhhhhh humbug.

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

You see Sepiae he's done it again. No motive on view whatsoever! Tried to strangle his wife, but done her no harm. Also, as far as we know Isenschmid harmed no one. Plenty of threats to kill, but no action, and yet we are to believe that in the space of a week he killed, and mutilated two prostitutes, and then never harmed a single sheep, errr, person again. I suppose his delusions only played him up for a week? Oh doctor, I've had a nasty turn of the delusions, here take these aspirins, and a copy of The Farmers Weekly, and you'll be alright in a fortnight.You are aware Sepiae that Isenschmid was incarcerated on the night Kate Eddowes was murdered?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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...

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.