Jack had to slip up

[perrymason]

Hi all,

So you've noticed that too Paul, that the point gets countered regardless of its value. Perhaps Sam has taken on the role of naysayer to challenge us....that would be more acceptable to me than close minded, anyway....

Since 3 of the 5 did have their uterus removed from their bodies, and one of the 4 had no abdominal cuts, so its three out of 4 that had abdominal cuts also had their uterus extracted. 75% is hardly insignificant Sam.

Perhaps you're right in saying he was actually safer killing indoors, but that wouldn't take into account that in Millers Court, it is the only time he has just one way out. Bucks Row was open ended, someone comes one direction he runs the other...Hanbury St was a backyard with fences that could be hopped in 3 directions. We'll skip Dutfields, because for one, it not likely she was killed by The Ripper, and secondly, his has two ways out, through the club, or over the fence near Wess's office. In Mitre Square there were 3 access points, did he know 2 were used by patrolmen? Maybe, but he still had the carriageway access to flee via.

For him to be seen in #13 means he literally could have been trapped in that room with no escape available anywhere.

Sam I think you must believe the man was a fool by some of the points you raise. I don't. I think he was intelligent. I think he liked freedom, and I think he had no intention of ever painting himself into a room in a courtyard with one exit. And if he didnt kill Mary Kelly...then you have no basis to suggest he would choose such a venue.

It seems keeping the Canonical Group intact takes lots of duct tape and belief suspension.

My best regards.

[paul emmett]

So you've noticed that too Paul, that the point gets countered regardless of its value

Hi, Michael, Sam.
That isn't my point. Where Sam and I frequently disagree is when it seems to me that he demands that I fit everything into one theory. How can Eddowes's kidney, for example, fit in with JTR's focus on feminine/birthing parts? Maybe it can and maybe it can't. But if it can't, that doesn't mean that JTR didn't have A focus on feminine/birthing parts.

Have good days.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

three out of 4 that had abdominal cuts also had their uterus extracted. 75% is hardly insignificant Sam.

It actually can't really be said to be significant, in a sample as small as the one we're talking about here. I'm quite happy to accept that it may have been significant, but I feel that the significance might be down to the simple fact that there were very few organs available in the lower abdomen which Jack could - literally - lay his hands on.

Not that this diminishes any hint of sexual sadism on Jack's part - far from it. It's not even as if most sexual sadists practise abdominal mutilation, more often "contenting" themselves with bullying or beating up their wives/girlfriends. Jack was, after all, killing and cutting open a woman's body, which in itself may be seen as a powerful symbol of misogyny, without his going to the extent of removing organs as well.

To this extent, the removal of organs might have been the product of a crazy idea that seized the Ripper on the spur of the moment. Perhaps, dare I suggest, the thought only occurred to him due to the better lighting conditions that prevailed in Hanbury Street as compared to Buck's Row.

Perhaps you're right in saying he was actually safer killing indoors, but that wouldn't take into account that in Millers Court, it is the only time he has just one way out. Bucks Row was open ended, someone comes one direction he runs the other...Hanbury St was a backyard with fences that could be hopped in 3 directions... In Mitre Square there were 3 access points

And there you've hit the nail on the head. If we flip the argument around, it's apparent that whilst there were multiple escape-routes at his disposal in those outdoor venues, they also served as multiple entry-points from which potential witnesses or captors could approach.

For him to be seen in #13 means he literally could have been trapped in that room with no escape available anywhere.

We know that he took risks. I guess the risk of someone wandering in at 3 or 4 in the morning to that secluded room was one he was prepared to tolerate. It was certainly much safer there than at "getting-up-time" in Hanbury Street, with a dozen or so windows gazing down onto his impromptu operating theatre - added to which was the additional issue of someone passing within a few feet on his way to the outside privy, with naught but a flimsy fence in between.

It seems keeping the Canonical Group intact takes lots of duct tape and belief suspension.

I'm not at all precious about the Canonical Five, Mike - and, if anything requires a suspension of belief, it is the notion that someone else was around with the ability to inflict such indignities upon the corpse of Mary Kelly, and to do so in such a way that rendered nearly every previous Ripper murder seem as unremarkable as a poke in the eye.

[NOV9]

Hi Mike,It actually can't really be said to be significant, in a sample as small as the one we're talking about here. I'm quite happy to accept that it may have been significant, but I feel that the significance might be down to the simple fact that there were very few organs available in the lower abdomen which Jack could - literally - lay his hands on.

Not that this diminishes any hint of sexual sadism on Jack's part - far from it. It's not even as if most sexual sadists practise abdominal mutilation, more often "contenting" themselves with bullying or beating up their wives/girlfriends. Jack was, after all, killing and cutting open a woman's body, which in itself may be seen as a powerful symbol of misogyny, without his going to the extent of removing organs as well.

To this extent, the removal of organs might have been the product of a crazy idea that seized the Ripper on the spur of the moment. Perhaps, dare I suggest, the thought only occurred to him due to the better lighting conditions that prevailed in Hanbury Street as compared to Buck's Row.
And there you've hit the nail on the head. If we flip the argument around, it's apparent that whilst there were multiple escape-routes at his disposal in those outdoor venues, they also served as multiple entry-points from which potential witnesses or captors could approach.
We know that he took risks. I guess the risk of someone wandering in at 3 or 4 in the morning to that secluded room was one he was prepared to tolerate. It was certainly much safer there than at "getting-up-time" in Hanbury Street, with a dozen or so windows gazing down onto his impromptu operating theatre - added to which was the additional issue of someone passing within a few feet on his way to the outside privy, with naught but a flimsy fence in between.I'm not at all precious about the Canonical Five, Mike - and, if anything requires a suspension of belief, it is the notion that someone else was around with the ability to inflict such indignities upon the corpse of Mary Kelly, and to do so in such a way that rendered nearly every previous Ripper murder seem as unremarkable as a poke in the eye.

You said "Not that this diminishes any hint of sexual sadism on Jack's part"

Sam,

Do you really believe that Jack or Mary's killer was a sexual sadist?

Sam, please think this out before answering.

[NOV9]

Hi Mike,It actually can't really be said to be significant, in a sample as small as the one we're talking about here. I'm quite happy to accept that it may have been significant, but I feel that the significance might be down to the simple fact that there were very few organs available in the lower abdomen which Jack could - literally - lay his hands on.

Not that this diminishes any hint of sexual sadism on Jack's part - far from it. It's not even as if most sexual sadists practise abdominal mutilation, more often "contenting" themselves with bullying or beating up their wives/girlfriends. Jack was, after all, killing and cutting open a woman's body, which in itself may be seen as a powerful symbol of misogyny, without his going to the extent of removing organs as well.

To this extent, the removal of organs might have been the product of a crazy idea that seized the Ripper on the spur of the moment. Perhaps, dare I suggest, the thought only occurred to him due to the better lighting conditions that prevailed in Hanbury Street as compared to Buck's Row.
And there you've hit the nail on the head. If we flip the argument around, it's apparent that whilst there were multiple escape-routes at his disposal in those outdoor venues, they also served as multiple entry-points from which potential witnesses or captors could approach.
We know that he took risks. I guess the risk of someone wandering in at 3 or 4 in the morning to that secluded room was one he was prepared to tolerate. It was certainly much safer there than at "getting-up-time" in Hanbury Street, with a dozen or so windows gazing down onto his impromptu operating theatre - added to which was the additional issue of someone passing within a few feet on his way to the outside privy, with naught but a flimsy fence in between.I'm not at all precious about the Canonical Five, Mike - and, if anything requires a suspension of belief, it is the notion that someone else was around with the ability to inflict such indignities upon the corpse of Mary Kelly, and to do so in such a way that rendered nearly every previous Ripper murder seem as unremarkable as a poke in the eye.

Sam,

You said "And there you've hit the nail on the head. If we flip the argument around, it's apparent that whilst there were multiple escape-routes at his disposal in those outdoor venues, they also served as multiple entry-points from which potential witnesses or captors could approach."

The escape routes were planed out, just like the Brinks robery, this is a very patent killer, do not think for one moment that he does not know of the possibalitys of getting caught, but that is what he likes, not just the thrill of the kill but, the rush he gets with the possibilaty of getting caught is there. kind of like a couple in an elevator, you can fill in the blanks here. no pun intended.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Just couldn't add here a feet on the ground to the question of the thread;

What if MJK thought him to be "just a regular customer, since Saucy Jacky strikes outdoors?"

All the best
Jukka

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

A wrong thread!

All the best
Jukka

[Sam Flynn]

Hi N9,

Sam,

Do you really believe that Jack or Mary's killer was a sexual sadist?

Frankly, I don't see that it's necessary that he was. Others might, though, so I was just covering that particular base

[Dan Norder]

Jack was almost certainly a sexual sadist, a trait he had in common with other similar serial killers such as Joseph Vacher, Andrei Chikatilo, Peter Kürten and so forth.

If nothing else there's absolutely no reasonable argument to rule it out completely. The people who try to do so have, from what I have seen, either made faulty conclusions based upon a misunderstanding of what sexual sadism really is or have a theory that depends upon some rather specific objective behind the murders.

[paul emmett]

Jack was almost certainly a sexual sadist, a trait he had in common with other similar serial killers such as Joseph Vacher, Andrei Chikatilo, Peter Kürten and so forth.

If nothing else there's absolutely no reasonable argument to rule it out completely. The people who try to do so have, from what I have seen, either made faulty conclusions based upon a misunderstanding of what sexual sadism really is or have a theory that depends upon some rather specific objective behind the murders.

That's for sure!

[Sam Flynn]

If nothing else there's absolutely no reasonable argument to rule it out completely.

I agree, Dan. Just because I don't think it "necessary" doesn't mean I rule it out.

[NOV9]

I agree, Dan. Just because I don't think it "necessary" doesn't mean I rule it out.

A sadist is someone that gets off on the victim's pain.

Torture is what the sadist enjoys the most, pain is his game.

Jack was not a sadist nor was Mary's killer, sense all the cuts were post mortem.

Sadist is a rare breed, not your run of the mill killer like Jack.

[Dan Norder]

Jack was not a sadist nor was Mary's killer, sense all the cuts were post mortem.

That would fall under "faulty conclusions based upon a misunderstanding of what sexual sadism really is."

Post mortem cuts are a form of sadism. That's how they are classified.

But, don't worry, your misunderstanding is a common one.

[Dan Norder]

Sadist is a rare breed, not your run of the mill killer like Jack.

And you've got those two flipped. Sadists are relatively common, at least compared to mutilation serial killers.

[NOV9]

That would fall under "faulty conclusions based upon a misunderstanding of what sexual sadism really is."

Post mortem cuts are a form of sadism. That's how they are classified.

But, don't worry, your misunderstanding is a common one.

Dan,

I'm shocked at how uninformed you are.
You really should not talk about such matters that you are not educated in.

You said, "Post mortem cuts are a form of sadism." do you really believe that?

Do you have any idea how ignorant that sounds?

But, don't worry, your misunderstanding is a common one.

NOV9