No Trophies

[Wickerman]

Hi Phil.
I took Nichols to be short and stocky with a full face as opposed to short and thin with an almost gaunt face like Eddowes.

.

[Phil H]

Wickerman - I can see the similarity between Tabram and Chapman - fleshy women, but was not Polly Nichols a "jenny wren" of a woman, small and wispy? I don't see how she fits in to a type.

Indeed, I would have thought Polly was closer to Kate in terms of build and looks.

Phil

[Wickerman]

That Tabram, Nichols & Chapman had an unmistakable overall appearance cannot be denied. Though why select Eddowes, Stride & Kelly if he was looking for a particular type already found previously?

This does at least suggest a reason for the facial mutilations carried out on Eddowes & Kelly, and Stride may not have been of his choosing anyway, as many continue to believe.

Yes, that does pose another interesting consideration.

.

[Phil H]

Errata - that approach would lead us all to writing novels about JtR which might be insightful, perceptive, even revealing (if you accept the initial hypothesis), but which would not IMHO be remotely convincing.

We know NOTHING of "Jack's" psychology beyond guess work.

Phil

[Errata]

And, in my humble opinion, the bloke was oblivious of time and space. But why not? All things belonged to him.

Lynn, if you have reached the point where you can perceive Jack's world-view and psychological view of things - you have clearly gone further than I believe anyone can go. Where is the evidence for that, especially your last sentence?

Phil

You are not wrong in your statement, but I'm not entirely sure it is fair. New facts are few and far between, and no evidence survives. But new points of view are there for the taking. Speculation on the killer's state of mind and world view can lead to new avenues of exploration, where staring at a piece of asphalt that once had a crime scene under it cannot. Any breakthroughs in the case will not begin with the examination of evidence. It will end there. It will begin with an unprovable feeling, an impression, a completely made up scenario explaining the killer's actions that may not even be remotely right, but it will lead to poring through old records with an eye towards proving this nebulous concept, and that's what leads to new knowledge.

For example, I think Jack had mommy issues on a par with Ed Gein or Ed Kemper. I think these women were targeted because they reminded him of his mother. I don't think Mary Kelly or Liz Stride were killed for even remotely the same reasons as the other three (or four or five). I think his problem with them was that they were prostitutes who could be mothers, could be his mother, and he is specifically removing the uterus as an attack on their ability to procreate, not as a sex thing. I think he is saying that these women don't have the right to bring a life into the world who will be abused, ignored, and shamed by his mother's occupation. Public service homicide with a whole lot of rage about his own past and his own problems.

How do I know? I don't. Not even a little. It's built on a bunch of impressions. I wondered why if it was supposed to be a sex thing, no other part of the body associated with sex was attacked, the way it was with Mary Kelly. I wondered why three of the C5 were of a type. I wondered why he felt it necessary to blot out Eddowes face, which tends to be a personal thing. If I don't think it's a sex thing, and I don't think it's some rogue medical thing, then I'm pretty much left with a mommy thing. And when it's a mommy thing, the reasons for it in the end are pretty few. Abuse, neglect, shame. That he attacked women and didn't collect like Gein means anger. That he attacked matronly women and not young women means displacement, which means public service homicide.

Can I prove it? Nope. Not even gonna try. But it affects how I read he information, and that could mean I see something that a person looking for a schizophrenic doesn't see. And vice versa. So it has value. Even if it pure speculation and imagination.

[lynn cates]

And I quote:

Hello Phil. Thanks.

The last is his quote.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

And, in my humble opinion, the bloke was oblivious of time and space. But why not? All things belonged to him.

Lynn, if you have reached the point where you can perceive Jack's world-view and psychological view of things - you have clearly gone further than I believe anyone can go. Where is the evidence for that, especially your last sentence?

Phil

[lynn cates]

mine

Hello Damaso. Thanks.

"I think both Lynn and myself happen to believe that Long did see Chapman talking to her killer"

Yes, indeed.

And, in my humble opinion, the bloke was oblivious of time and space. But why not? All things belonged to him.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

a bit

Hello Christer. Thanks.

A few minutes after that.

Cheers.
LC

[Damaso Marte]

It's not as if he was shouting. Only part of the conversation was overheard. I think that chatting up the victim is a must in the ripping business.

We don't really know that the woman Mrs Long/Darrell saw was Chapman. We have no idea whether "Jack" spoke to her or not. IMHO the likelihood is that by the time Mrs Long passed by, Annie had been dead some considerable time - as I believe she was more probably killed during the hours of greater darkness when the risks were less.

That is not to say that I believe "Jack" did not speak to the women, I think he had to. Just that we don't have no reliable evidence that he did so to Chapman, any more than we can be absolutely certain that Lawende saw "Jack" with Kate. It COULD have been him, but we cannot be sure - it is not impossible that "Jack" was already at work in the Square when Lawende saw a different couple.

Phil

Nothing you say is wrong. I think both Lynn and myself happen to believe that Long did see Chapman talking to her killer, and our disagreement was on how to interpret this shared belief, but of course this is not the universal view.

[Errata]

If we make the supposition that the Ripper was a serial killer, that does give us some ideas as to whether or not he would kill someone just to make them die (as the country songs say). Nobody kills without a reason. Which is not to say it's a good reason, or that they are even able to articulate the reason, but there is a reason. If we assume that the Ripper was a serial killer, then we can say with a certain degree of confidence that his murders are pretty highly ritualized. Goal oriented, done in a particular way, systematic. We can also say that while the death is not the goal, the death is also ritualized, even though it's not the point. So that tells us that (assuming it's a serial killer) this guy is driven by the goal, which is the mutilation and organ extraction (he's also clearly anal). He's a ritualistic killer. Without the ritual, there is no point. So why then would he kill a woman and make no attempt to mutilate her? And it's not that he wouldn't but it would require a specific set of circumstances. Say for example someone saw him kill. Or confronted him about his behavior with prostitutes. He would kill any woman (probably would not stand up to a man) who jeopardized his mission, if he couldn't talk them out of it. But if she's not his "type", he would not engage in the ritual. He kills to perform his ritual, and he would kill a witness or any threat. But he wouldn't kill just to kill. If he did there would have been a lot more bodies. And people who kill just to kill tend towards spree killing, not serial killing.

[Michael W Richards]

I think its important to keep the idea of Motivation and Method and Signature separated...that is what I do with Liz and it does allow for the perspective that the apparent Motivation for the murder of Liz Stride was to cause her death. Why...we dont know. But the evidence says thats all that went on.

The Motive for killing Annie was apparently to mutilate her abdomen after her murder, and at least in part, to obtain a specifically female organ. Could that same killer have changed to an indoor killer? Sure. Could he have changed targets and started killing and mutilating men or children? I suppose so. Could he have left London and done murders involving mutilation and organ extractions elsewhere?. Possible.

Can we say that we have any evidence to suggest that he might also just kill someone as his Motive? Actually..we dont have that evidence. We have that supposition.

Best regards

[Fisherman]

"Is it your position that Nichols was killed earlier than we think?"

No. I think it was about 3.30--give or take.

LC

Aha. And at what approximate time do you have Mizen looking at Nichols, noticing that blood is still flowing from her neck, just as Neil had noticed the same thing a few minutes before...?

Maybe you should give instead of taking.

All the best, Lynn!
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

details

Hello Damaso. Thanks.

"It's not as if he was shouting. Only part of the conversation was overheard. I think that chatting up the victim is a must in the ripping business."

Indeed. But the conversation was described as "loud." Make of that what you will.

"Is it your position that Nichols was killed earlier than we think?"

No. I think it was about 3.30--give or take.

"Whoever killed Nichols was rational enough to flee the scene . . ."

Or just leave? Whence the fleeing?

". . . and whoever killed Chapman was rational enough to, as others have pointed out, take basic precautions around not leaving blood around."

But even a humble butcher might do that, not leaving an excessive mess.

"Are we to believe that it was pure luck both times that the killer escaped without leaving any evidence at the scene?"

We? Neither of us can speak for any but ourselves.

What to believe? Whatever you like. I am not the commissar of doxastic states.

No evidence? A tad too strong. He rifled Annie's belongings. Her effects were NEATLY arranged. He seemed oblivious of danger and hence his surroundings. Make of that what you will.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

It's not as if he was shouting. Only part of the conversation was overheard. I think that chatting up the victim is a must in the ripping business.

We don't really know that the woman Mrs Long/Darrell saw was Chapman. We have no idea whether "Jack" spoke to her or not. IMHO the likelihood is that by the time Mrs Long passed by, Annie had been dead some considerable time - as I believe she was more probably killed during the hours of greater darkness when the risks were less.

That is not to say that I believe "Jack" did not speak to the women, I think he had to. Just that we don't have no reliable evidence that he did so to Chapman, any more than we can be absolutely certain that Lawende saw "Jack" with Kate. It COULD have been him, but we cannot be sure - it is not impossible that "Jack" was already at work in the Square when Lawende saw a different couple.

Phil