The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[DJA]

I have always believed that JTR was a mixture of a disorganised and organised killer. We don't really know whether Polly Nichols was the victim of a sudden blitz attack or was accompanied a little along Bucks Row, possibly exchanging some chat, until near Browns Stables and then attacked.

Reckon she was accompanied away from Hanbury Street to a quieter location.

Married. Two daughters.

[Abby Normal]

I haven't 'turned turtle' at all. I have always believed that JTR was a mixture of a disorganised and organised killer. We don't really know whether Polly Nichols was the victim of a sudden blitz attack or was accompanied a little along Bucks Row, possibly exchanging some chat, until near Browns Stables and then attacked.

Certainly the killer made no attempt at any time to hide the bodies, they were just killed, mutilated and left where they were (the sign of a disorganised killer). He was also probably single. I do not believe he was in a profession.

As an organised killer he left no weapons, no clues save for the GSG and apron and may have soothed some of his victims into a sense of false security. I don't believe he communicated with police or press, although he may have written the 'from hell' letter, and I certainly don't put him fully into the category of an organised killer.

According to the FBI definition he was mixed category organized/disorganized, but according to some FBI experts he was disorganized. LOL
So go figure.

IMHO he was organized.

[Abby Normal]

Would it be impossible to you to not interfere with how I write?

No it would not. Just trying to help you out as it seems it would make it easier for the everyone to understand your replies, as it appears a lot here are having difficulty,including Elamarna, who has also asked you to stop and to use the quote function correctly.

[GUT]

No it would not. Just trying to help you out as it seems it would make it easier for the everyone to understand your replies, as it appears a lot here are having difficulty,including Elamarna, who has also asked you to stop and to use the quote function correctly.

Makes it hard to quote him too.

Maybe that's why he does it.

[SuspectZero]

Then you are only interested in this forum believeing you and not the world?

""Scientific thinking". What would you know about that?"

35 years working in research departments in the medical schools of Two London colleges, thats what!

I don't tell you my view is the only view, if you have evidence post it.

Seriously Steve - that's pretty impressive.

[SuspectZero]

Who is that?

Regards, Pierre

Ok. So we can rule out Pierre's having a degree in English literature.

[GUT]

Ok. So we can rule out Pierre's having a degree in English literature.

[DJA]

Peter Pan has been my favourite story since three and a half years of age.

[Elamarna]

Seriously Steve - that's pretty impressive.

Hi SuspectZero,

yes started in 1978, took early retirement 2014,

Steve

[John G]

According to the FBI definition he was mixed category organized/disorganized, but according to some FBI experts he was disorganized. LOL
So go figure.

IMHO he was organized.

Hi Abby,

David Canter carried out a study analysing 39 aspects of serial killing, derived from 100 murders committed by 100 US serial killers. The conclusion was, "The results demonstrate that instead of being a basis of distinguishing between serial killings all such crimes will have a recognized organized quality to them, as might be postulated from the definition of a series of vicious crimes in which the offender was not detected until he had carried out a number of the offences. Rather than being one subtype of serial killer, being organized is typical of serial killers as a whole. This conclusion is further supported by the central role that the high frequency organized variables play in the model of serial killers that emerges. They operate as the core variables. This means that they are the variables that are most likely to co-occur with others." See: Canter et al., The Organised/Disorganized Typology of Serial Murder: Myth or Model; Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2004, Vol 10., No3., 282-320.

[John G]

Steve, there are lots of people here with lots of knowledge about lots of facts. I have very little such knowledge. But I have some other knowledge, Steve. And those with the long catalogues of facts, often collected through years of hard work, have not found the killer. But I think I have. So the poor knowledge of many facts is one thing, the knowledge about the person I think was Jack the Ripper is something entirely different.

Ah, this is interesting Pierre. Unless I've misunderstood you're saying that you're somewhat disinterested in "facts", but you have a "knowledge" about "Jack the Ripper." Am I therefore to assume that this isn't any form of factual knowledge? Are we back in the realms of the metaphysical and the mystical Pierre?

Considering your many qualifications, are you a Batchelor of Metaphysical Theology perchance?

Could I also ask: have you discovered any further "near homonyms", or letters that may be subject to a metaphorical interpretation, that might conclusively reveal the identity of the killer?

[FrankO]

Steve: There must have been better places, if it was planned.

Pierre's reponse:
But not from the perspective of the killer, since he chose this place. You are using your own perspective on the killer´s choice of murder location.

The thing is, Pierre, that you earlier claimed that the night of the Double Event was “extremely well planned”. So, Steve is just using what you earlier claimed the murderer's perspective was. Could you explain what you meant by that, since you now claim that the killer LOVED taking risks?

Thanks,
Frank

[FrankO]

How could it be reduced to an "opinion" that the killer loved taking risks and felt superior when he chose high risk places at a very short distance from one or more police constables?

Since the notion that he loved taking risks is not the only possibility, it is an opinion, Pierre. Another option is that the murderer’s urge to kill was simply bigger than his inclination to be cautious and to plan much, if anything, ahead.

Regards,
Frank

[Mayerling]

"No more fairy tales...."

Hello Pierre (or should I call you "Van Helsing"?),

I noticed your failure as a student of late 19th Century - early 20th Century British (perhaps I should add Scottish - British) literature. Alas, it probably seemed too minor and inconsequential for you to enter the never-never land of the imagination, and have your thoughts take flight. Or perhaps you don't believe in fairies, as you don't like fairy tales. But, what can I really say - it seems to be a personal matter for the great you. As Shakespeare might have said it, "The faults dear "Pierre" are not in the stars but in ourselves!". Still all this concern with vampires has gotten concern. You may need an exorcism - check with some little minister you may know around somewhere. Otherwise, given your drive and care you may achieve your goal to be an admirable Crichton in the field of finding the ripper.

I still find I'm concerned on this "vampire" problem of yours. Nobody has brought it up yet as a bugaboo regarding their interest in this field - only you. I really wonder why?

In a previous comment of yours on this thread (# 755) you got into an interesting explanation of your fears regarding real scholarly study in the area of Ripperology with "Hercule Poirot". I hope Hercule does not mind me commenting on this passage between the two of you (but, after all, you have broken into personal communications of my own with another party on one the threads - when it was none of your business, so turnabout here is fair play).

This response of yours was (as I said above) message 755, and it was on 01/09/2016.

Hercule Poirot: "I don't consider myself a ripperologist, but maybe one day I'll become one."

PIERRE: "I hope not. Because then you must write long catalogues of facts not connected to the killer. And you must sacrifice 30 year or more. That is, if you invite the vampire into your home."

Hercule Poirot: "In the meantime, I'm only a writer among other stories on a Ripper fiction, enjoying such a fascinating knowledge basis and admiring those who contribute to it. So please avoid serving comments such as those you made. You are simply revealing the extent of your ignorance of what Ripperology really is."

PIERRE: "Yes I am. And I will not sacrifice 30 years for the killer."

Hercule Poirot: "It's OK to show us you're trying to do a serious job with your eventual theory and I must say I appreciate it a lot. But never forget, so are others, and they deserve your respect."

PIERRE: Sure. And when I have the vampire I will put a stake through its heart so people won't have to make any more sacrifices. And there will be no more fairy tales about the Vampire."

I am assuming that by the overuse of the term "Vampire" you are making it a code word for Jack the Ripper. There was only one instance where the Ripper was possibly admitting (when a half of a kidney was returned by mail) that he ate any of the mutilated organs he took from his victims. No doubt if he did he might have digested some human blood. However there is no real proof this half kidney was from the victim, and we only would have the comment that the other half was eaten ("it was very nice", said the letter), but just that. No real proof of someone actually drinking a human being's blood. In fact the only time I heard any serial killer claiming he drank blood it was Haigh, the acid-bath killer of the 1940s (a considerable time after the Whitechapel murders) and he also claimed he drank his own urine. This was most likely false - Haigh was trying to build up a case he was insane (it didn't work fortunately). Similarly Albert Fish apparently experimented with eating feces of his own and possibly of his unfortunate child victims. But no actual case of a vampire serial killer that I know of.

Disgusting isn't it to bring all that up - I certainly admit it. But your comments about "Vampire" invited it all up. I hope you are proud of that achievement.

I want you to know that while I have been interested in the Ripper Case since the 1960s, I have not spent every moment of my time giving full thought to it. Indeed if I spent 30 years doing anything, it was 31 years (1981 to 2012) working at a civil service post to qualify for a pension which I currently am enjoying. That seemed far more important than 30 years of inviting any monster of the night into my household. I have written on Victorian crime, but I also did movie reviews on the IMDb website, and I have written on ships and shipwrecks. It seems I have little desire to waste my time admiring a particular monster every moment of three decades. WHY DO YOU?

FOR YOU DO? It's an obvious obsession of yours - driving a stake into the heart of the "Vampire" Jack. Hate to tell you this again. As these crimes occurred in 1888 or if you wish 1886 - 1891 or so, the killer would probably have been dead and buried (without a stake in his or her heart) by 1950 or so, and certainly by 2016. Unless you have proof of a physical, walking monster - not the intellectual phantom you've conjured up. Your viewing yourself as some kind of heroic sort freeing the world of this creature of the night is pathetic. You are not that heroic - how can you be by shooting you comments off long after he's gone.

If you want to actually be useful concentrate on producing your results now and cease this sick "I know something you all don't know" game. In the end it will probably be more advantageous to yourself. If you fear being beaten to the finish line by someone using your discoveries, publish them now so that you have prior credit for them.

This is of course, if you actually have something to show - not vaporings like you have been producing.

Also, if you decide to respond to my comments, DO NOT PUT YOUR RESPONSES ANYWHERE BUT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE MESSAGE, OUTSIDE ANY BOX CONTAININT MY ABOVE COMMENTS THAT YOU WANT TO COMMENT OR "RIP APART" YOURSELF. I consider your habit of interfacing your comments in the middle of the response somewhat insulting - like a pompous teacher doing corrections.

Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

David Canter carried out a study analysing 39 aspects of serial killing, derived from 100 murders committed by 100 US serial killers. The conclusion was, "The results demonstrate that instead of being a basis of distinguishing between serial killings all such crimes will have a recognized organized quality to them, as might be postulated from the definition of a series of vicious crimes in which the offender was not detected until he had carried out a number of the offences. Rather than being one subtype of serial killer, being organized is typical of serial killers as a whole. This conclusion is further supported by the central role that the high frequency organized variables play in the model of serial killers that emerges. They operate as the core variables. This means that they are the variables that are most likely to co-occur with others." See: Canter et al., The Organised/Disorganized Typology of Serial Murder: Myth or Model; Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2004, Vol 10., No3., 282-320.

Pretty much agree here

but I think serial killers like mullins, chase, woodcock could be pretty much rightfully classified as dis organized. and note that they were all officially diagnosed as being insane.

There are examples of other killers, serial or not, who have also been disorganized-or I would say they were at least. typically theyre young and/or its their first,inexperienced, perhaps trigger, kill, and/or insane.

Characteristics are they happen upon victims at random, or by chance, use whats available to kill, don't necessarily plan and/ or leave leave clues.

I think the organized/disorganized/mixed classification can be somewhat useful, but I think most experts agree its outdated and rather ambiguous.

so for example if you were to find a victim dead in a park, or in another public place and evidence points to them being killed there, and the murder weapon was something like a stick or some weapon found at the scene I think disorganized and the profile that goes with it would probably be correct.