Maybrick and Sutcliffe and...

[miakaal4]

Jack and the Yorkshire ripper/s were both killers of prostitutes in the main. Though we all know I am sure that Sutcliffe wasn't fussy and women in general were also victimised. But is that all they had in common.
I would be willing to bet a good few quid that Sutcliffe thought about Jack at least once during his career of murder.
With Maybrick we have a man who was able to travel around without suspicion, and who had the means to clean himself up and hide any traces of his crimes.
This is the same with Sutcliffe.
I believe Mrs S was difficult to live with; (no doubt because PS was so strange?) Florence was difficult for JM because she was having no nonsense with his dallying. So both were in a sense being dominated by their wives.
Both killers used a means to immediately incapacitate the victim, to enable them to mutilate. Both targetted the abdomen.
Is this Type?
I know that the RED SPIDER murders of Poland were also of a similar Type.
I suppose what I am trying to do is find a basic common denominator that this type of murder is perculiar to.
A known killer like PS allows study, without the controversy of the Diary. I shall have a look at the YR case and see what I find.
The questions I'm asking are;
What made these men mutilate in the same/ish way?
What was the real motive/need to slash the belly? Why not the back? The Breasts? The heart?

[Colin Roberts]

Jack and the Yorkshire ripper/s were both killers of prostitutes in the main. Though we all know I am sure that Sutcliffe wasn't fussy and women in general were also victimised.

Anna Rogulskyj, Olive Smelt, Jayne MacDonald, Maureen Long, Josephine Whitaker, Barbara Leach, Marguerite Walls, Upadhya Bandara, Theresa Sykes, and Jacqueline Hill, i.e. ten of the twenty women that Sutcliffe was convicted of having attacked (those which are emboldened, fatally so) were not prostitutes. But in Sutcliffe's psychotically distorted perception they were; and that is all that matters. If Sutcliffe thought that they were prostitutes, then they might as well have been, because they suffered the same fate as those that actually were.

It matters not whether we think that Stride and Eddowes ('Liz' and 'Kate' [cough, cough, gag …] for those around here that have somehow managed to end up on a first-name/nickname basis of acquaintance with these women) were soliciting when they encountered their demises. It matters only what the murderer(s) thought! Period! But I guess that some Catesbook posters aren't willing to let observed realities stand in the way of pet theories involving mad pork butchers, domestic disputes, one-off 'slashes and dashes', sky-high rates of cut-throat murder, the Okhrana, Fenians, police cover-ups, conspiracies, Martians, Elvis and grassy knolls.

[Colin Roberts]

... pet theories involving mad pork butchers, domestic disputes, one-off 'slashes and dashes', sky-high rates of cut-throat murder, the Okhrana, Fenians, police cover-ups, conspiracies, Martians, Elvis and grassy knolls.

Did I forget "logic"?

I believe that a fundamental knowledge of the Yorkshire Ripper case should be an outright prerequisite for active membership to these forums!

I would add a second prerequisite, a degree in logic.

[Cogidubnus]

Did I forget "logic"?

In the course of a glorious rant, somewhere along the line, you probably did...

All the best

Dave

[Colin Roberts]

I see that the self-appointed Catesbook referee and champion of fair play has decided to join the discussion.

In the course of a glorious rant, somewhere along the line, you probably did...

The occasional "glorious rant" or some 1,500 one-liners in the span of less than nine months: take your pick.

[Cogidubnus]

Dunno about you Colin but I intended mine as a humorous aside...perhaps I should've added a smiley...I'm sorry if it didn't come across that way!

All the best

Dave

[Colin Roberts]

Dunno about you Colin but I intended mine as a humorous aside...perhaps I should've added a smiley...I'm sorry if it didn't come across that way!

Thank you!

Please accept my apologies for the fact that I hastily jumped to the wrong conclusion, and for the tone of my reply. I am sorry!

[Cogidubnus]

That's more than generous Colin...I shall try to be less ambiguous in future!



All the best

Dave