Jack had to slip up

[NOV9]

Hi Perry,

So do you believe Mary Kelly was killed by someone who wasn't a necrosadist like the ripper, but gave a jolly good impression in Miller's Court of a textbook act of necrosadism? If so, did he do it by accident or design? Spontaneous or premeditated?

And isn't there an argument for suggesting that anyone who could contemplate the acts of a necrosadist and put them into practice for reasons of self preservation is himself a necrosadist by definition?

If you poison someone to put the blame on a serial poisoner you are just as much a poisoner yourself, no?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz,

How could you possibly believe that Jack was the only killer in the whitechapel district?

Do you really believe copycat murders were not committed in 1888, and that Jack killed all the unfortunates?

Or are you just being lead around by the nose with no thought of your own?

Please prove me wrong? What proof do you have that it was Jack that killed Mary?

Have a nice day Caz.

[paul emmett]

If you poison someone to put the blame on a serial poisoner you are just as much a poisoner yourself, no?

Hi, Caz.

I remember when the Ripper and Royals stuff first came out, a friend said that no matter who did it and no matter what the reason, he/she/they were still Jack The Ripper, still a necro-sadist psychopath.

And, indeed, it seems to me that "copycatting" is not just a strategy: it suggests a desire, conscious or un, to be the other.

[NOV9]

What do you know, Dan? You don't even know what a sadist is. I bet you don't even know that Jack's signature was removing the liver of his victims and therefore he didn't kill MJK.

Bloody amateurs.



Carry on NOV9.

And may I say what an apt username for someone who thinks Jack was at home in his slippers sipping cocoa on that date.

What a carve-up.

Love,

Caz
X

Guess what there is a room opening up in Bell View, so you and Dan might as well check in, if you really believe in what you just said in your quote.

[caz]

Hi Perry,

So do you believe Mary Kelly was killed by someone who wasn't a necrosadist like the ripper, but gave a jolly good impression in Miller's Court of a textbook act of necrosadism? If so, did he do it by accident or design? Spontaneous or premeditated?

And isn't there an argument for suggesting that anyone who could contemplate the acts of a necrosadist and put them into practice for reasons of self preservation is himself a necrosadist by definition?

If you poison someone to put the blame on a serial poisoner you are just as much a poisoner yourself, no?

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, it was already discussed on the old boards, and on the new boards in another thread, and on this thread, and probably will be 100 times or more in the future, not that it will do any good.

The problem is that someone who is either too incompetent and/or too egotistical to do a little bit of basic research before aggressively arguing a stance on a topic he or she knows nothing about is not going to be competent or humble enough to admit they were wrong and learn from the experience even in the face of a mountain of evidence. So the jc007s, NOV09s, perrymasons and Glenn Anderssons of the world will argue until their dying days that Jack the Ripper could not have been a sadist despite the fact that the professional diagnostic criteria for the condition explicitly includes the very acts that describe exactly what Jack did. On another board they'd probably be trying to argue that helium is not a gas and that all the experts who say so are wrong because any fool knows automobiles don't run on helium.

Actually just a day or two ago I posted a response in another thread that lauded your categorization of the killers actions as being Necrosadistic. And I said at the time that seemed quite apt. Not that it defines his motivations, or his drivers, but the physicality of their, or its, expression.

Just because I dont agree with your every point of view doesnt mean I dont learn from some of them. I doubt thats reciprocal, but there ya go.

Cheers Dan.

[Dan Norder]

Yes, it was already discussed on the old boards, and on the new boards in another thread, and on this thread, and probably will be 100 times or more in the future, not that it will do any good.

The problem is that someone who is either too incompetent and/or too egotistical to do a little bit of basic research before aggressively arguing a stance on a topic he or she knows nothing about is not going to be competent or humble enough to admit they were wrong and learn from the experience even in the face of a mountain of evidence. So the jc007s, NOV09s, perrymasons and Glenn Anderssons of the world will argue until their dying days that Jack the Ripper could not have been a sadist despite the fact that the professional diagnostic criteria for the condition explicitly includes the very acts that describe exactly what Jack did. On another board they'd probably be trying to argue that helium is not a gas and that all the experts who say so are wrong because any fool knows automobiles don't run on helium.

[Magpie]

Oh and for the record i don't think he was a sadistic sexual killer, a sadist according to the dictionary is:a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others so it seems to me in order to get gratification by inflicting pain on someone then that someone would have to be alive to do it, yet the ripper killed his victims very quickly, not the act of someone who would get pleasure out of seeing them suffer physically or mentally, you really don't have a compelling arguement for this yet you seem determinded to be right regardless of the fact your dead wrong.

He may have gotten some kind of pleasure out of mutilating his victims, or taking away parts of thier bodies but its highly unlikely regardless of what you say that he was a sadist.

I thought this was already discussed on the old board.

Necrosadism involves mutilation and humiliation of the victim after death. The idea that Jack would have been required to kill his victims slowly to be considered sadistic shows a lack of understanding of what sadism actually is.

The intense mutilation, post-mortem posing of the body, the lack of concealment of the crime, and the disfigurement of the faces (in the later victims) are all signs of a necrosadist at work.

[caz]

What do you know, Dan? You don't even know what a sadist is. I bet you don't even know that Jack's signature was removing the liver of his victims and therefore he didn't kill MJK.

Bloody amateurs.



Carry on NOV9.

And may I say what an apt username for someone who thinks Jack was at home in his slippers sipping cocoa on that date.

What a carve-up.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dan Norder]

Caz,

To quote Tom Wescott, that was awesome.

[NOV9]

Hi NOV9,

May I say how thoroughly I have enjoyed reading your input to this thread, and I only needed to change my drawers twice during the whole procedure.

I think I can answer your questions:

He took care not to let them fall because if he wasn’t a sadist he would obviously have wanted to let them down gently (despite hating them enough to pick fights with them in pubs for the sake of it) and make sure they were quite quite dead before ‘cutting them up’ when they were beyond caring.

I suspect the direction he positioned the head is directly connected with his inability to find the position of the liver, or to distinguish it from other biological features such as the uterus and kidneys (or indeed the arse from the elbow), making his signature of removing each victim's liver impossible to actually achieve, but his intentions to achieve it only too obvious, not only to someone of your considerable knowledge and experience, but also to the killer of Mary Kelly, who took Jack’s intended signature and ran with it, by removing her liver with no trouble at all and letting it rest between her feet (which were, significantly I feel, pointing in the opposite direction from her head), thus performing a near perfect copycat operation in accordance with how Jack himself would have done it had he known his onions from his liver and his north from his south, east and west.

Have you ever been to the Isle of Wight, by the way? I hear some people there have never been off it. The Bread Inn is very popular.

Have a great weekend.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

After reading your quote, I'm just speechless.

You have a great weekend as well.

NOV9

[caz]

Jack strangled the unfortunates, and did not let the bodies fall to the ground, the absence of bruising to the back of the head. Then he cut the throat.

So why would he take care not to let them fall? Considering how brutal he was in cutting them up.

In what direction did he position the head? In reference to the top of the head, was it facing North, South, East, or West?

Everything he did seems to be ritualistic, poising the bodies, turning their head to face a certain direction.

NOV9

Hi NOV9,

May I say how thoroughly I have enjoyed reading your input to this thread, and I only needed to change my drawers twice during the whole procedure.

I think I can answer your questions:

He took care not to let them fall because if he wasn’t a sadist he would obviously have wanted to let them down gently (despite hating them enough to pick fights with them in pubs for the sake of it) and make sure they were quite quite dead before ‘cutting them up’ when they were beyond caring.

I suspect the direction he positioned the head is directly connected with his inability to find the position of the liver, or to distinguish it from other biological features such as the uterus and kidneys (or indeed the arse from the elbow), making his signature of removing each victim's liver impossible to actually achieve, but his intentions to achieve it only too obvious, not only to someone of your considerable knowledge and experience, but also to the killer of Mary Kelly, who took Jack’s intended signature and ran with it, by removing her liver with no trouble at all and letting it rest between her feet (which were, significantly I feel, pointing in the opposite direction from her head), thus performing a near perfect copycat operation in accordance with how Jack himself would have done it had he known his onions from his liver and his north from his south, east and west.

Have you ever been to the Isle of Wight, by the way? I hear some people there have never been off it. The Bread Inn is very popular.

Have a great weekend.

Love,

Caz
X

[NOV9]

Jacks safe zone

Yeah... thanks for reply. Then do you believe the Ripper lived in a 1/2-mile radius of Mary Ann Nichols?

Arsenic Addicted Lipski,

The 1/2-mile radius is an approx. distance, Jack would need to be close to home, so he would not be on the streets to long after his kill, this would be his buffer zone, he would not kill to close to his buffer zone as well, he needs distance to avoid detection as well as the ability to return home quickly.

So the answer to your question is "Yes".

NOV9

[NOV9]

Position of bodies

Jack strangled the unfortunates, and did not let the bodies fall to the ground, the absence of bruising to the back of the head. Then he cut the throat.

So why would he take care not to let them fall? Considering how brutal he was in cutting them up.

In what direction did he position the head? In reference to the top of the head, was it facing North, South, East, or West?

Everything he did seems to be ritualistic, poising the bodies, turning their head to face a certain direction.

NOV9

[NOV9]

I never said I was smart, only clever.

Mike

Narcissistic

[The Good Michael]

Let’s not be the Bad Michael today. We all know that you are smarter than anyone on this site.

NOV9

I never said I was smart, only clever.

Mike