Did Jack only kill 3?

[lynn cates]

time

Hello Sally. Thanks.

"The only thing that stops me with Kelly is that she was allegedly seen in the morning of the 9th - not by a single person, but by two. In neither case is there an obvious reason for those reporting those sighthings to fabricate - so they must be explained somehow."

By 3, actually. And, yes, an explanation is in order. But I don't think the time counts for or against either theory. A serial killer can kill early or late; so can an intent assassin.

"Of course, it is possible that both Maxwell and Lewis did lie; that they mistook another for Kelly, etc - and of course it is this very thing - the morning sightings - that has led to the plethora of conspiracy theories regarding Kelly to begin with."

But again, in my view, the time is irrelevant to the motive for killing.

"There are a lot of mysteries surrounding Kelly's death."

Indeed.

"Now it may of course be that there are simple, if lost, explanations for them all, if we but knew it."

Possibly. there are also many surrounding Liz and Kate. But not so many around Polly and Annie.

"I also think that the fact that the case has not been solved does not logically indicate that there is another explanation other than that of the lone serial killer to account for murders - although the lack of plausible suspects (in most cases, at least) might make an alternative approach a temptation."

Well, perhaps not the lack of a solution. But perhaps the disparities AFTER the first two does.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Well, perhaps not the lack of a solution. But perhaps the disparities AFTER the first two does.

Ah, but not everybody sees those 'disparities' as having significance, Lynn. Where you appear to see significant, major differences subsequent to Annie; others see a progression in violence.

Who's to say who is correct at this remove?

[lynn cates]

restated

Hello Sally. Thanks.

"Ah, but not everybody sees those 'disparities' as having significance, Lynn."

Quite. To be honest, if either Polly or Annie had not been attacked, killed and mutilated, I would not see them either. It is only because the first two so resemble one another that I find it difficult to bring Kate on board.

"Where you appear to see significant, major differences subsequent to Annie; others see a progression in violence."

They do indeed. But one hopes that Liz is not included as the violence level in her killing seems actually to have DECREASED.

Perhaps one could claim--and rightly--that the level of violence increased in all the cases except in those where it decreased?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

We see an escalation in violence in almost all serial murder cases. Not only do we observer an escalation in violence, it is also noted that the killer will often change weapons. Sutcliffe used several different hammers, screwdrivers etc.

Regarding Sutcliffe, Colin Roberts has pointed out on another thread the similarities between the Yorkshire Ripper murders, and the Jack the Ripper(yes there was such an individual) murders. I believe Sutcliffe is as near as we are going to get to evaluating the character of Jack the Ripper. I believe they are remarkably similar, and it's now a well known fact that Sutcliffes murders were sexually induced.

Below a description of the garment Sutcliffe wore under his trousers when he was finally apprehended.

When Sutcliffe was stripped of his clothing at the police station he was wearing a V-neck sweater under his trousers. The sleeves had been pulled over his legs and the V-neck exposed his genital area. The front of the elbows were padded to protect his knees as, presumably, he knelt over his victims' corpses. The sexual implications of this outfit were held to be obvious.

Let me just say that we are indebted to Micheal Bilton, for revealing this fact in his book "Wicked beyond belief".

I believe JTR's motivation for his actions were sexually orientated. And (like Sutcliffe) he was burdened with an overpowering compulsion to kill and mutilate. It's apparent that these rare individuals can no more cease killing than they can breathing. Thank God they are indeed a rare occurance.

Regards

Observer

[Fisherman]

Hi Observer!

One may also observe that Sutcliffe was a pretty cool customer, hiding his hammer and knife while taking a piss, something that was only realized some time later by a policeman who remembered having hear a metallic sound as Sutcliffe discarded his weapons. Sutcliffe also braved the storm for an impressive time, lying and flatly denying things and keeping very cool.

So, a man with a mind for quick decisions and a very cool approach to trouble coming his way. Plus a man who made his living as a lorrydriver - today´s equivalent to the carmen of 1888. A man, to boot, with a family life back home.

Ring any bells?

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hahaha very good Fisherman. You make a good point though, I believe we should be looking for a man with a family life. I also believe he liked a drink or two, and frequented the areas bars. He knew where he could find prostitutes also. An average man in most aspects of his life.

Regards

Observer

[robhouse]

Hello Sally. Thanks.

"Ah, but not everybody sees those 'disparities' as having significance, Lynn."

Quite. To be honest, if either Polly or Annie had not been attacked, killed and mutilated, I would not see them either. It is only because the first two so resemble one another that I find it difficult to bring Kate on board.

"Where you appear to see significant, major differences subsequent to Annie; others see a progression in violence."

They do indeed. But one hopes that Liz is not included as the violence level in her killing seems actually to have DECREASED.

Perhaps one could claim--and rightly--that the level of violence increased in all the cases except in those where it decreased?

Cheers.
LC

In my opinion, if you actually read the coroners' autopsy reports, it is almost impossible to deny many similarities between the wounds and mutilation inflicted on Eddowes and Kelly, and for that matter, Chapman.

RH

[lynn cates]

many similarities

Hello Rob. Thanks. No one wishes to deny many similarities--at least, I don't.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

. A man, to boot, with a family life back home.

Ring any bells?

Hi Fisherman


Yes, I agree he`s the closest example we have, but I don`t think he killed anyone on the way to work, or whilst he was at work.
His marrige was dysfunctional, the pair were nutters, and they didn`t have any kids.

[Observer]

Hi John

I think you'll find that workers in the LVP were up and about and indeed into work much earlier than their 1980's equivalents, walking the streets whilst under cover of darkness. I don't think having kids would have deterred Sutcliffe, or indeed hampered his nefarious activities. His wife was a nutter, but very shrewd apparently, and he still managed to conceal his murderous exploits from her.

Regards

Observer

[Jon Guy]

Hello Mr O

I agree, I don`t think having kids would have deterred Suttcliffe but his marriage was not right, and kids were never on the cards forthe Sutcliffe`s, unlike Charles "Walton" Cross.

I`m pretty sure Sutcliffe ever killed anyone whilst out in his lorry, and he would often return from a trip during darkness. He put false plates on his car rather than using the works lorry to circle the red light area.

In fact, as I suspect you know, Sutcliffe`s car was part of his MO, as he would ask the prossie to get in the back for intercourse and whack them on the head from behind as they climbed in the back.

He`s not like Cross, at all. But he`s the only serial killer we could compare with the Ripper.

[Rubyretro]

.

But he`s the only serial killer we could compare with the Ripper.

[/QUOTE]

Well, I would put Danilo Restivo the closest to my idea of the Ripper...

He has only been 'done' for 2 murders so far, but there is to be a retrial for a third, and there are possibly others. Whilst he was under police surveillance, he stalked women using a whole murder kit -the only reason that he didn't kill one of them was that the police had the means to follow, bug him, and stop him..

- for his first murder (convicted), he multiply stabbed a girl using two weapons, inside a building.
He hid the body -because he could- but he dispayed the victim with her trousers lowered (no long skirts to raise), in the hiding place.

-for his last murder (convicted), he killed another acquaintence, this time in her own home, having previously stolen her keys. He mutilated her, cutting off her breasts and placing them under her head, displayed her lowering her trousers, and took a trophy (hair). He purposefully contaminated himself from the crime scene and willingly underwent police interrogation -which he passed.

The other potential victims were in the open.

[Fisherman]

Observer:

" I believe we should be looking for a man with a family life. I also believe he liked a drink or two, and frequented the areas bars. He knew where he could find prostitutes also. An average man in most aspects of his life."

Bingo, Observer, if I´m not much mistaken - although I´m not sure about the drink bit. We may equally be looking at a man who observed a very rigid self-control, a man who avoided things like drink. But that´s just one possibility - he may equally have been a drinker to at least some extent. Anybody´s guess, I´m afraid.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Jon!

" I agree he`s the closest example we have, but I don`t think he killed anyone on the way to work, or whilst he was at work.
His marrige was dysfunctional, the pair were nutters, and they didn`t have any kids."

They tried to have kids, but a number of miscarriages put an end to that prospect. And how functional the Lechmere marriage was - who can tell?

As for the killing en route to work part, Sutcliffe had the social opportunities to do his business at other times, apparently. But we still have a guy traversing prostitute territory on a very frequent basis, preying on prostitutes. The similarities are there - but maybe we should not expect them to be total.

Al the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"He`s not like Cross, at all."

Do we know this, Jon? Actually?

All the best,
Fisherman