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

[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?

[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

[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.

[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]

placing

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

Hi Wickerman,

yes, indeed. Not quite as obvious, perhaps, in principle the over-the-shoulder-throwing could be 'getting it out of the way'. But twice, yes, it does look more like purpose.

I'd be interested in what people think about this handling and placing, particularly at Miller's Court.

What do you think?

[lynn cates]

ruminations

Hello Sepiae. Thanks. I tend to forget that many have not read my Isenschmid essay or the thread where all the particulars were laid out. I did that, in large part, to circumvent just such questions as you ask.

But, once more into the breach dear friends, once more.

The gentleman alluded to wandered the streets whilst carrying knives. I believe that at least some of the “Leather Apron” stories were inspired by his presence. In particular, I believe he “shook down” prostitutes for change. (His delusion was that “all things belonged to him.”) Hence, when frustrated—just as with his wife—he lashed out and tried to strangle. He was unsuccessful with her due to the timely intervention of a neighbour. But Polly and Annie, both severely impaired at the time, were, I think, less fortunate.

Regarding scientific procedure: For some time I have found great delight in chatting up my colleagues in the science department (REAL science—not “social”) and asked how they handle David Humes’s induction problem. With only one exception, my respondent stared blankly and confessed ignorance of the problem. That, for me, says it all.

“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 are at one here. No one need to convince me of the cause/effect relation.

“If, as an attempt, you might be willing to try on the idea that what we're looking at might indeed be serial murder. . .”

Funny you should mention that. I used to spend a bit of free time each month in an attempt to visualize at least the three killings (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes) as done by one or other of the various “prime” suspects. Alas, I finally terminated the project for the same reason David Hume gave up metaphysics/ontology. I paraphrase: “After engaging in metaphysical thought I break away and dine with friends, drink wine and play backgammon. When I come back to the metaphysics, it all appears cold strain’d and ridiculous.”

And so it is with my “serial killer” Jack speculations.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Kate out

Hello (again) Sepiae.

"Yes, but Lynn doesn't hold [Isenschmid] responsible for [Kate's] murder."

I do not, indeed. I salute your reasoning skill. Would all were so blessed.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

placing

Hello Jon.

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

What, exactly, is meant by "placing" in this context? Surely not the overall body placement? They were quite different as I recall.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hi Wickerman,

yes, indeed. Not quite as obvious, perhaps, in principle the over-the-shoulder-throwing could be 'getting it out of the way'. But twice, yes, it does look more like purpose.

I'd be interested in what people think about this handling and placing, particularly at Miller's Court.

What do you think?

Hi Sepiae
I think the placing of organs indicates a carefulness, perhaps experience with, and a purpose-specific desire to cleanly, quietly, efficiently get at the organs he took away.

I do not think the ripper was haphazardly slashing and cutting away, randomly searching about. I think he was experimenting, playing--savoring the cuts he made with his knife.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

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

What, exactly, is meant by "placing" in this context? Surely not the overall body placement? They were quite different as I recall.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Chapman:
"...The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached."
"...a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there."
Dr. Phillips.

Eddowes:
"...the intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder; a piece of the intestines was quite detached from the body and placed between the left arm and the body.
Mr. Crawford. - By "placed," do you mean put there by design? Witness. - Yes.
Mr. Crawford. - Would that also apply to the intestines that were over the right shoulder? Witness. - Yes."

I am taking the doctors at their word. I do believe it is possible that an object can be judged to have been "placed", as opposed to have fallen randomly, purely by its alignment & orientation. And, in both cases the intestines were draped over the right shoulder.

[Natasha]

Hi Wickerman,

yes, indeed. Not quite as obvious, perhaps, in principle the over-the-shoulder-throwing could be 'getting it out of the way'. But twice, yes, it does look more like purpose.

I'd be interested in what people think about this handling and placing, particularly at Miller's Court.

What do you think?

Hi Sepiae

There is no mention in Bond's report of removal of reproduction organs, so I will make a bold assumption that the killer believed MJK to be pregnant. I'm not saying she was, but I think the killer thought so. The position of her hand across the abdomen looks like it was placed there as if hinting at this suggestion, could it be that the motive had something to do with this?
The killer had completely ripped this woman apart and I feel that by attacking everything else and leaving that area (and if MJK was a ripper victim) this murder tells us something significant about his motives and possibly who he was.
The placing and handling I think would therefore have no specific meaning in itself, but if the above is true, then taking all the organs out and leaving the reproduction area relatively untouched makes what was still left in the body more important, and I guess the killer was sending a message to that effect.

[lynn cates]

placing

Hello Jon. Thanks for clarifying.

I thought you had meant posing. If it's the intestines, yes, I'd agree.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

There is no mention in Bond's report of removal of reproduction organs,
so I will make a bold assumption that the killer believed MJK to be pregnant.

I assume you are not including the uterus in the above observation?

"...the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head."

[Natasha]

I assume you are not including the uterus in the above observation?

"...the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head."

Hi Jon

Sh** I forgot about that

I still think the hand being placed where it was indicates something though

[Natasha]

I know that the 1800s saw a lot of deprived, ill people, but it does stand to reason that these women had something in common, apart from the obvious, that being bad health. Now Prostitution is synonymous with the spreading of disease, now I know it is possible that the ripper may have killed because he may have caught something, but I want to explore other reasons because the killer took organs away. Now if the killer was killing because he caught something, then why would he take what he thought were diseased reproduction organs away?

Eddowes had Brights disease, kidney absent, the pathologist said he noticed a green discolouratioin on the abdomen, since he mentioned and monitored it I assume it would be unusual for a body to change in these terms so quickly after death, so I believe Eddowes had a problem with poor circulation, or maybe cellulitis a streptococcus bacterial skin infection, this could of course have been mistaken for a STD.
‘Placing’ & handling the organs: Kelly, having had, according to bond’s report, old scar tissue, nodules etc on the lungs, could it be possible that Kelly suffered from problems with her respiratory system because of this? The victims I suspect all had health problems. Annie had obvious signs of ill health and was on tablets. If stride was a ripper victim she had a dodgy leg, it bowed forward, and I think she would have had a limp. Kelly’s heart was absent, so we don’t know what, if any, condition it was in. The other victims, apart from (Nichols) reproduction organs were missing. I’m not really sure how Nichols fits in, there doesn’t seem to be any indication that she had health problems, although some teeth were missing. Now Kelly’s organs were handled, not taken (apart from heart) but why? The Killer seems to have a morbid fascination with the body internally rather then externally. It could be that the organs had a symbolic meaning to the ripper.