Definitely canonical

[Nick Spring]

This brings me to an aside: I have always been under the impression that if a fantasy is fulfilled, another one takes its place because that last fantasy can never be relived to the extent the first one was. we see this with cocaine users who always say that they are trying to recapture that first high, but it is never the same...perhaps another drug, or more of the last one will work.

So with JTR I see a person who had a vague idea of what would thrill him, but each time it changed because the satisfaction was no longer there in a repetitive murder. Is it no wonder then that Eddowes murder was so much more aggravated than Chapman's especially if he was interrupted with Stride as some of us lean?

So while I may agree that he had some idea of what he wanted, I believe it was vague rather than a detailed ideal.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Yes totally agree with the above.

I believe that he satiates himself with Kelly somehow however, what happens next?

Best

Nick

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. You mean after Kelly his heart was not in it? (sorry)

Cheers.
LC

The moment he found out that Kelly was heartless, he probably lost interest in the whole business... (equally sorry)

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Serial killers fantasize for years before ever killing someone. So yes. I think he knew what his ideal kill was. Which is not to say there was a script. I think he knew how he wanted to feel, and he had some fantasies that made him feel that way. He started acting them out, but would change to maximize the feeling he wanted. Whether it be relief, power, control, whatever. If strangulation did nothing for him, he wouldn't have done it. Restraints did nothing for him. He didn't use them. He didn't take their eyeballs or something like that because it didn't interest him. Cutting them open did interest him. So did throat cutting. So did uteruses. He may not have had a step by step guide with him, but he knew what gave him pleasure. And I think his ideal kill looked a lot like the murders he committed. I think it changed and shifted as he tried new things, but this was not a guy who was ever going to be the killer who nailed a woman to a table, or stashed her corpse in a storm drain and visited it at night. His murders were always going to look a lot like what he actually did.

This brings me to an aside: I have always been under the impression that if a fantasy is fulfilled, another one takes its place because that last fantasy can never be relived to the extent the first one was. we see this with cocaine users who always say that they are trying to recapture that first high, but it is never the same...perhaps another drug, or more of the last one will work.

So with JTR I see a person who had a vague idea of what would thrill him, but each time it changed because the satisfaction was no longer there in a repetitive murder. Is it no wonder then that Eddowes murder was so much more aggravated than Chapman's especially if he was interrupted with Stride as some of us lean?

So while I may agree that he had some idea of what he wanted, I believe it was vague rather than a detailed ideal.

Mike

[lynn cates]

Take heart!

Hello Christer. You mean after Kelly his heart was not in it? (sorry)

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

...after MJK, could Jack be content returning to his usual methodology?

Been there, done that ...? Interesting thought, Barnaby.

Then again, MacKenzie may well be a Ripper killing - but one without true enthusiasm, perhaps, mirroring hat you say just the same.

All the best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Additionally, it goes against all logic to ascribe to the commonly thought notion that JTR had medical knowledge and carefully removed certain organs. That makes no sense when you add in the other aspects of the crimes and the fact that there was no time. Even modern doctors with their full access to the latest equipment were quoted in a recent JTR documentary as saying there is no way, even with the best of equipment, that they could have done the organ removals that JTR was supposed to have done in the time he was supposed to have done them, especially not IN THE DARK. It was their opinion, in fact, that not only could they not have done these things, but no one logically could have.

Hello, MDRice
Your comment is the strongest support that I've seen so far for the candidacy of Jacob Levy (or another offal dresser) as the killer.

I would not expect modern surgeons to think JtR's work could be done in the time frame -- they are doctors trained to save lives, to work with proscribed procedures to make that happen.

JtR had no such constraints.

I suspect that most people no longer know what tripe is or that it and other offal were once inexpensive, nutritious mainstays in the diets of the Victorian-era poor.

curious

[Nick Spring]

Serial killers fantasize for years before ever killing someone. So yes. I think he knew what his ideal kill was. Which is not to say there was a script. I think he knew how he wanted to feel, and he had some fantasies that made him feel that way. He started acting them out, but would change to maximize the feeling he wanted. Whether it be relief, power, control, whatever. If strangulation did nothing for him, he wouldn't have done it. Restraints did nothing for him. He didn't use them. He didn't take their eyeballs or something like that because it didn't interest him. Cutting them open did interest him. So did throat cutting. So did uteruses. He may not have had a step by step guide with him, but he knew what gave him pleasure. And I think his ideal kill looked a lot like the murders he committed. I think it changed and shifted as he tried new things, but this was not a guy who was ever going to be the killer who nailed a woman to a table, or stashed her corpse in a storm drain and visited it at night. His murders were always going to look a lot like what he actually did.

Hi Errata,

I think your right in this and Kelly gave him the ultimate opportunity when it arrived.

Best

Nick

[Barnaby]

In my original post I did not mean to insinuate that he knew what his ideal kill was, but I see that it does read that way. I meant it in more relativistic terms. Yes, I think he would report a preference for killing relatively younger and more attractive women in a place that afforded privacy and time than killing older women on the streets.

This is my belief, but really there are no data to justify it! On the other hand, there are data to suggest that his preference was for the latter (based on the victimology). I fall into the camp, however, that interprets this as that Jack killed women who were easily available and this does not necessarily reflect a preference, more of a forced choice.

To leave the world of a very sick individual and provide a more real-world example, lots of guys would like to date supermodels but most of us don't and end up being quite content nonetheless. So I'm sure Jack derived satisfaction regardless. However, after MJK, could Jack be content returning to his usual methodology?

[Errata]

Do you really think he knew what his ideal kill was? Or do you think it just escalated due to opportunity? By this I mean, did he actually know what he wanted to do? My opinion is that he became creative when the opportunity came, but had no idea or plan for such a thing.

Mike

Serial killers fantasize for years before ever killing someone. So yes. I think he knew what his ideal kill was. Which is not to say there was a script. I think he knew how he wanted to feel, and he had some fantasies that made him feel that way. He started acting them out, but would change to maximize the feeling he wanted. Whether it be relief, power, control, whatever. If strangulation did nothing for him, he wouldn't have done it. Restraints did nothing for him. He didn't use them. He didn't take their eyeballs or something like that because it didn't interest him. Cutting them open did interest him. So did throat cutting. So did uteruses. He may not have had a step by step guide with him, but he knew what gave him pleasure. And I think his ideal kill looked a lot like the murders he committed. I think it changed and shifted as he tried new things, but this was not a guy who was ever going to be the killer who nailed a woman to a table, or stashed her corpse in a storm drain and visited it at night. His murders were always going to look a lot like what he actually did.

[MDRice]

"Kelly is different in many ways. All roads lead to Kelly or she was by another hand."

I used to be of the same opinion. Either she was killed by a different offender or she was the target the whole time. However, when you examine the other deaths in detail it becomes apparent that those previous to Kelly involved a classic disorganized offender (such as Richard Trenton Chase) and there is too much consistency to attribute this to purposeful staging. Additionally, it goes against all logic to ascribe to the commonly thought notion that JTR had medical knowledge and carefully removed certain organs. That makes no sense when you add in the other aspects of the crimes and the fact that there was no time. Even modern doctors with their full access to the latest equipment were quoted in a recent JTR documentary as saying there is no way, even with the best of equipment, that they could have done the organ removals that JTR was supposed to have done in the time he was supposed to have done them, especially not IN THE DARK. It was their opinion, in fact, that not only could they not have done these things, but no one logically could have. To me, this logically and necessarily points to the fact that one disorganized killer was responsible for Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Liz Stride, and Catherine Eddowes, but someone else did the intricate organ removals--either while the bodies were unattended on the streets, or when they were in the morgue, probably to sell them. Additionally, in so many aspects, Mary Kelly's death was just not consistent with the others. It differs in areas of MO, signature, and victimology. The specifics of the horrors done to Mary Kelly and the amount of time and organization it took to do them just is not consistent with the disorganized blitz style attacks of the others. Although it is true that sometimes serial killers will evolve from fully disorganized to include aspects of organization, it is just not very probable that an offender could go from full disorganized to the levels of organization found in Mary Kelly's case in one changing of victim, that is just so improbable to point to it being statistically impossible UNLESS the first disorganized offenses were staged, and there is just nothing that points to that possibility.

[Nick Spring]

Do you really think he knew what his ideal kill was? Or do you think it just escalated due to opportunity? By this I mean, did he actually know what he wanted to do? My opinion is that he became creative when the opportunity came, but had no idea or plan for such a thing.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Totally agree. He had the opportunity and acted accordingly. He would have achieved this earlier had the opportunity arisen.

Best

Nick

[The Good Michael]

I completely agree. He preyed on the most vulnerable but that wasn't his ideal. He got "lucky" - if you will - with MJK.

That he couldn't realize his ideal more often suggests both that it was harder to commit and get away with these crimes against women of higher means (obviously) and that he couldn't afford the services of more expensive prostitutes.

Do you really think he knew what his ideal kill was? Or do you think it just escalated due to opportunity? By this I mean, did he actually know what he wanted to do? My opinion is that he became creative when the opportunity came, but had no idea or plan for such a thing.

Mike

[Nick Spring]

Here you say: "Marys killers objectives were to kill her, to slice her into smaller pieces and empty her abdomen and chest placing organs around her body, and to take her heart."

I have to respectfully disagree. When examining the severity and time involved in the atrocities committed against Mary Kelly, it seems apparent to me that Mary Kelly's killer's objective was not just to kill her, or to cut her, he wanted to obliterate her very existence. This type of overkill savagery is actually not uncommon in domestic violence cases of homicide in which the offender and the victim have shared an intimate volatile relationship lasting some time or of exceeding intensity, and such savagery and rage almost always denotes an obvious pre-offense relationship (please see Vernon Geberth's article here: http://www.practicalhomicide.com/Res...mviolence.htm). Moreover, the killer of Mary Kelly shows an organization not present in the other murders. He spent a huge amount of time with her and had to have somehow planned in order to know that her on again off again boyfriend and the other female prostitute who had been staying with her were not going to show up. This is just not consistent with the disorganized behaviors present in the murders of Annie Chapman, Mary Ann Nichols, Liz Stride, and Catherine Eddowes--which were blitz style attacks that lasted only minutes and could not have included the intricate removal of organs that have been attributed to the JTR offender (it is only logical that the organ removals were done post-murder while the bodies were unattended, or at the morgue, by some unsavory characters who probably sold them).

Additionally, the victimology of the supposed canonical Ripper victims is lucid when taking into account Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Liz Stride, and Catherine Eddowes, these four women shared many similarities. Kelly, however, is an anomaly. In fact, the only things she shared with these traits of the other women is that she was a prostitute prone to drink (as in fact most were) and they were from the same area (along with probably hundreds of other women).

Thoughts?

Gracias,
MD Rice

Kelly is different in many ways. All roads lead to Kelly or she was by another hand.

[pinkmoon]

Police did interview her ex Barnet after the murder could he have killed her and disguised it as a ripper murder?.kelly was in arrears with her rent she probably wouldn't have been to picky with who she did business with.

[Barnaby]

In thread after thread, people assume that the Ripper killed older prostitutes in the street because this is what he preferred to do, skipping over the possibility that he did this because younger prostitutes with their own room were simply not there in large numbers and that an MJK-style murder was in fact his preference.

I completely agree. He preyed on the most vulnerable but that wasn't his ideal. He got "lucky" - if you will - with MJK.

That he couldn't realize his ideal more often suggests both that it was harder to commit and get away with these crimes against women of higher means (obviously) and that he couldn't afford the services of more expensive prostitutes.