Mabuse: It could just as well be that his thrill came from doing these crimes in places where he could be seen and he had a chance of being caught.
This chance may have been part of the lure for him.
In which case, he is planning; he's selecting a situation that gives him this potential to be caught, a suitable victim, and an escape route - and doing the crime anyway, because he gets some of his jollies from this brazen act. This is also why he displays his victims in such a vile tableau.
This has to go into the equation, yes - there were always the staircases, the backyards, the odd abandoned house, but he chose the open streets anyway. I think this may well be an indication of a conscious choice with a built-in thrill - and perhaps also a built-in sense that he was superior to those who wanted to catch him anyway.
The suggestion is well worth pondering.
It is very unlikely for a disorganised thinker to be this lucky, time after time.
Absolutely - and nowhere would it be more unlikely than in a crowded metropolis.
There were groups of men out looking for him, the police rounds had been increased. For him not to be seen at any time suggests he's doing more than randomly acting out on delusional impulses.
There were also people on the streets on their way to work and people walking the streets for other reasons. The thought that the Ripper arrived at and left all his murder spots without anybody seeing him is a far-fetched one. Reasonably, he was seen by others. But whereas a psychotic killer would arguably not have tried to hide what he had done, apparently this man did. So yes, we are most likely dealing with an organized planner.
That he is almost caught in Dutfield's yard and curtails that killing (yes I think it's likely this was the Whitechapel killer) shows that he is not disorganised; he stops what he's doing when interrupted and flees. Disorganised thinker experiencing a psychotic episode is not even on the same planet as Diemschutz.
The probability of an inhibited organ-harvesting from Nichols says the exact same thing to me. He was interrupted, and got out of it undetected nevertheless.
Plus he did not spill one single, small, diminutive drop of blood on Eddowes´clothes as he cut away at her stomach and secured her organs. There´s absolutely no sloppiness involved. Careful, steady, concentrated, that´s what I see here. Otherwise, he would have dripped and spattered all over her. But not a speck!
He clearly was stealthy, by definition. That's why he killed at night. This is evidence of organisation.
Yes, this is true. I also happen to think that Long, Cadosch and Richardson got it wrong or served porkies, whereas Phillips got it right - Annie Chapman was killed in as much darkness as the others. A chosen thing on behalf of the killer. Planning.
He is of course mentally ill.
His inside is not a sound one by any stretch, no. The outside may have seemed alright, though.
Personally, I find it difficult to ascribe this almost supernatural level of luck to him.
It seems clear that this killer was highly selective in target and goals, it would seem reasonable to extend that to his overall planning.
Wholeheartedly agreed. Of course.
All the best,
Fisherman
This chance may have been part of the lure for him.
In which case, he is planning; he's selecting a situation that gives him this potential to be caught, a suitable victim, and an escape route - and doing the crime anyway, because he gets some of his jollies from this brazen act. This is also why he displays his victims in such a vile tableau.
This has to go into the equation, yes - there were always the staircases, the backyards, the odd abandoned house, but he chose the open streets anyway. I think this may well be an indication of a conscious choice with a built-in thrill - and perhaps also a built-in sense that he was superior to those who wanted to catch him anyway.
The suggestion is well worth pondering.
It is very unlikely for a disorganised thinker to be this lucky, time after time.
Absolutely - and nowhere would it be more unlikely than in a crowded metropolis.
There were groups of men out looking for him, the police rounds had been increased. For him not to be seen at any time suggests he's doing more than randomly acting out on delusional impulses.
There were also people on the streets on their way to work and people walking the streets for other reasons. The thought that the Ripper arrived at and left all his murder spots without anybody seeing him is a far-fetched one. Reasonably, he was seen by others. But whereas a psychotic killer would arguably not have tried to hide what he had done, apparently this man did. So yes, we are most likely dealing with an organized planner.
That he is almost caught in Dutfield's yard and curtails that killing (yes I think it's likely this was the Whitechapel killer) shows that he is not disorganised; he stops what he's doing when interrupted and flees. Disorganised thinker experiencing a psychotic episode is not even on the same planet as Diemschutz.
The probability of an inhibited organ-harvesting from Nichols says the exact same thing to me. He was interrupted, and got out of it undetected nevertheless.
Plus he did not spill one single, small, diminutive drop of blood on Eddowes´clothes as he cut away at her stomach and secured her organs. There´s absolutely no sloppiness involved. Careful, steady, concentrated, that´s what I see here. Otherwise, he would have dripped and spattered all over her. But not a speck!
He clearly was stealthy, by definition. That's why he killed at night. This is evidence of organisation.
Yes, this is true. I also happen to think that Long, Cadosch and Richardson got it wrong or served porkies, whereas Phillips got it right - Annie Chapman was killed in as much darkness as the others. A chosen thing on behalf of the killer. Planning.
He is of course mentally ill.
His inside is not a sound one by any stretch, no. The outside may have seemed alright, though.
Personally, I find it difficult to ascribe this almost supernatural level of luck to him.
It seems clear that this killer was highly selective in target and goals, it would seem reasonable to extend that to his overall planning.
Wholeheartedly agreed. Of course.
All the best,
Fisherman
Comment