Jack had to slip up

[NOV9]

So that's your theory, is it, NOV9? That Kemper was Jack the Ripper?

Your previous post, if it accurately described Jack, would be a near perfect description of a guy who got off on terrorising his victims and needed to watch their suffering as they realised what was going to happen to them.

So what happened to your original claim that Jack was not a sadist?

I'm still struggling with what your definition of a sadist would be, if it's not someone who gets his jollies inflicting damage on the dead or suffering on the living.

...all that you know about Jack will begin to terrorized you...

Not before all that you know about Jack begins to dawn on everyone, sunshine.

Love,

Caz
X

I'm sorry sweetheart but it is obvious that you are looking for something more than analyzing the killer.

You seem to have something to prove.

You are not reading or even trying to understand what I write, because if you did you would not be asking such questions.

This is an old question that you have asked before, and you have formed an opinion as to what you believe to be true, and now you need to prove to me that I'm wrong.

You had no intentions of analyzing the difference between signatures. (Still fixated on what I said about a sadist)

Too bad sweetie, but this will not work.

So save your breath.

You just want to flutter around the sites like a social butterfly with no particular place to go, and just wasting time. That is fine with me. So please do not waste my time.


NOV9

[caz]

So that's your theory, is it, NOV9? That Kemper was Jack the Ripper?

Your previous post, if it accurately described Jack, would be a near perfect description of a guy who got off on terrorising his victims and needed to watch their suffering as they realised what was going to happen to them.

So what happened to your original claim that Jack was not a sadist?

I'm still struggling with what your definition of a sadist would be, if it's not someone who gets his jollies inflicting damage on the dead or suffering on the living.

...all that you know about Jack will begin to terrorized you...

Not before all that you know about Jack begins to dawn on everyone, sunshine.

Love,

Caz
X

[NOV9]

Edmund Kemper.

"It was an urge. ... A strong urge, and the longer I let it go the stronger it got, to where I was taking risks to go out and kill people risks that normally, according to my little rules of operation, I wouldn't take because they could lead to arrest." —Edmund Kemper.

[NOV9]

Nature Of The Killer

Bugger.

You beat me to it, Magpie.

NOV9,

Where is your evidence that any of the victims were given enough time to feel 'terrorised', or that the ripper wanted to see terror in their eyes as he struck (which would be sadistic by your definition, right?), or that he would have been able to see it if it was there?

Both rather depend on you asking the victims and the ripper, don't they? The evidence doesn't help you here.

Except, once again, in the Miller's Court case, where there is at least a whiff of evidence that Mary may have seen, or sensed, the knife coming and momentarily reacted before breathing her last.

Reduced to garbage yet?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz,

You said “Where is your evidence that any of the victims were given enough time to feel 'terrorized',”

It is the nature of the killer. He is punishing the victim, and to scare the hell out of them excites him.
This is all about his needs, and he does not care about anything else, except getting caught.

Think about it, you are walking down the street and suddenly you are approached and pulled into an ally,
At first you are startled and confused, your mind is not comprehending what is happing at the moment, and you begin to feel scared, the man then grabs you by the throat and shows you the knife, I’m sure he is looking you in the eyes, as he tells you that he is Jack the ripper, dread and despair will grip you, as you begin to realize that this is your final moment on earth, and all that you know about Jack will begin to terrorized you. Jack is not going to miss that; it is one of the needs he has, to see the terror in your eyes while you try to struggle to get free from him. This is very exciting to him, a rush that will fuel his rage. It will all happen is seconds.

There have been many interviews with captured serial killers, and what they all have in common, is that they love to terrorize the victim before the kill or during the kill. They need to terrorize the victim, or what is the use in just killing them?

Being narcissistic in nature they would want the victim to know why they are being killed. All this could be said while they are being choked to unconsciousness. (Signature)

Jack was punishing his victims just because in his mind they were nothing but whores, and he hated whores.

If you are still working on the Matrix for signatures you have to be careful not to add the MO in the formula, as you know there is a difference between them.

One killer was quoted as saying, “I reduced them to a stinking pile of mutilated meat”, and as he was saying this, he was smiling about it.

The strange thing about interviewing these killers, is that when they are reliving the event, a distant look comes over their eyes, a look that would make you very uneasy, in his own world and smiling while he was fantasizing the kill all over again.

NOV9

[caz]

Bugger.

You beat me to it, Magpie.

NOV9,

Where is your evidence that any of the victims were given enough time to feel 'terrorised', or that the ripper wanted to see terror in their eyes as he struck (which would be sadistic by your definition, right?), or that he would have been able to see it if it was there?

Both rather depend on you asking the victims and the ripper, don't they? The evidence doesn't help you here.

Except, once again, in the Miller's Court case, where there is at least a whiff of evidence that Mary may have seen, or sensed, the knife coming and momentarily reacted before breathing her last.

Reduced to garbage yet?

Love,

Caz
X

[Magpie]

I'm going to hazard a guess that the answer is: Baphomet!

[NOV9]

NOV9,

Considering your claim to have been reading signature for years and that Jack's signature is missing from Mary's murder, could you tell me (preferably without suggesting this time that he removed the liver from his victims and this indicated to you that he didn't kill Mary - the only victim whose liver was removed) which victims bear his signature and what it is, so I can work out for myself that it is indeed missing from Mary.

May I take a stab at it?

Was his signature to leave the heart in the body, by any chance?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz this requires patence. I will help if you need it.

Caz,

Despite of what the narcissistic dual say on the site, signature is very helpful in understanding the killer.
I will not tell you what is missing from the Mary Kelly's killing, you will see it for yourself, this will make the discovery your own. Believe me when I say you can see that it is missing. An oxymoron.

We keep hearing about body parts missing, liver, kidney, uterus, and cut up faces. What you have to do is make a list of what he did to his victim, leave nothing for granted.
Understanding signature is to understand Jack, all of the extractions is signature, every cut he did is signature, grabbing her by the throat, so he could control her is signature. The key is to make sure that the entire signature is the same.

When Jack attacked he used considerable force to terrorize his victim, letting them know who was the Master and who was the slave, seeing the terror in the eyes is very important to him, he was now going to turn a living being into garbage, and he will remove from them what makes them a woman, a form of humiliation, it does not matter to him if they die right away, this is about him, how he feels.

So make a matrix and compare the victim cuts, and method of assault, Jacks signature will not change, because it is his soul, he has a strong need to keep repeating it. And if it is missing, then it is not Jack.

Caz you need to understand Jack, before you start an investigation or otherwise you start running in circles.

Before you go to battle, it is wise to understand the enemy that is how you defeat him.

NOV9

Caz if I told you right out what is missing in the Kelly murder, it would be bedlam here.

Good luck

[paul emmett]

But in Mary's murder, Jack's signature is missing, something that he needs to express himself as Master to his victims, his control.

Taking her heart? Posing her body? Leaving her like that for all the world to see? All express control to me, and each can be seen as part of a recuuring pattern.

[caz]

NOV9,

Considering your claim to have been reading signature for years and that Jack's signature is missing from Mary's murder, could you tell me (preferably without suggesting this time that he removed the liver from his victims and this indicated to you that he didn't kill Mary - the only victim whose liver was removed) which victims bear his signature and what it is, so I can work out for myself that it is indeed missing from Mary.

May I take a stab at it?

Was his signature to leave the heart in the body, by any chance?

Love,

Caz
X

[NOV9]

NOV9,

Funny how you keep using the word narcissist after I used it in a post to explain to you how classification systems work. The problem with using words you don't understand to try to make yourself sound more intelligent is that it's pretty transparent to everyone else that you are doing so.

But, hey, at least you aren't talking about empiricism, psychopathy and the epistemological center of the case.

You do not think that narcissist applies to you.

Read your quote again, one word at time.

empiricism, psychopathy and the epistemological, and you do not think narcissist applies to you?

What a looser. You are so predictable.

Why don't troll another site.


NOV9

[Dan Norder]

NOV9,

Funny how you keep using the word narcissist after I used it in a post to explain to you how classification systems work. The problem with using words you don't understand to try to make yourself sound more intelligent is that it's pretty transparent to everyone else that you are doing so.

But, hey, at least you aren't talking about empiricism, psychopathy and the epistemological center of the case.

[NOV9]

Hi NOV9,

What Sam said.

I don't always agree with Sam - far from it.

But you really must learn to read what people write, and not what you think they have written. I have never suggested that Jack was the only killer of Whitechapel unfortunates. We are talking specifically here about Mary Kelly.

What would it have taken for Jack's signature to have been clearer in Mitre Square and Miller's Court? Would it have helped if he had killed Mary in the court itself, or picked on an older resident, or taken away another kidney or uterus and left all other organs alone? How would any of this have proved it was Jack again, to anyone who sees Mary's post-mortem mutilations (and in your case Kate's as well, apparently) as the work of a killer copying what was done to Polly and Annie?

At some point, don't you have to concede that the killer of Polly and Annie was at least as well qualified, on just about every level imaginable, to have killed Kate and Mary as anyone else who was roaming around Whitechapel during that period?

The point is not that Jack was the only murderer at the time - that's very obviously not the case, and nobody would expect it to be, regardless of time or place. The point is that there are a few posters to these boards who, for no good reason I have ever seen, have eliminated Jack in their own minds as even a potential suspect for Mary's murder, while seeing enough similarity there to insist on a copycat killer being responsible.

That has never made any kind of sense to me and it never will. If a copycat could have done it, then by definition so could Jack - assuming no proof has been found that he was down with the lurgy or something on November 9th. All the arguments for him not being in the room that night come across as strained and pregnant with personal agenda. Even if we had ten Pollies and Annies to inform our views, no Kate and just the one Mary, you'd still be short of a decent case for insisting she had to be killed by someone else. With so few examples to go on, there is no case for insisting anything of the sort.

Love,

Caz
X

Was that really you who wrote this post?
Seems like someone else wrote this, judging from the earlier ones.

You as well need to read my post on signature, this is the clue.

I can not believe the people on this site who think they understand signature, when they do not, with the exception of a couple of people here.

Even the narcissistic ones on this site fail to understand signature. And because they do not understand it they question my ability to understand it. I have been reading signature for years.

But in Mary's murder, Jack's signature is missing, something that he needs to express himself as Master to his victims, his control.

Caz, you seem to be a lot smarter than you let on, but with your attempt to be funny, when you know it is not funny, at someone else’s expense, I’m sure is not your nature.

I have respect for what you have to say, and was surprised at how you responded to a post I made.

Hope to hear from you.

NOV9

[caz]

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.

Hi NOV9,

What Sam said.

I don't always agree with Sam - far from it.

But you really must learn to read what people write, and not what you think they have written. I have never suggested that Jack was the only killer of Whitechapel unfortunates. We are talking specifically here about Mary Kelly.

What would it have taken for Jack's signature to have been clearer in Mitre Square and Miller's Court? Would it have helped if he had killed Mary in the court itself, or picked on an older resident, or taken away another kidney or uterus and left all other organs alone? How would any of this have proved it was Jack again, to anyone who sees Mary's post-mortem mutilations (and in your case Kate's as well, apparently) as the work of a killer copying what was done to Polly and Annie?

At some point, don't you have to concede that the killer of Polly and Annie was at least as well qualified, on just about every level imaginable, to have killed Kate and Mary as anyone else who was roaming around Whitechapel during that period?

The point is not that Jack was the only murderer at the time - that's very obviously not the case, and nobody would expect it to be, regardless of time or place. The point is that there are a few posters to these boards who, for no good reason I have ever seen, have eliminated Jack in their own minds as even a potential suspect for Mary's murder, while seeing enough similarity there to insist on a copycat killer being responsible.

That has never made any kind of sense to me and it never will. If a copycat could have done it, then by definition so could Jack - assuming no proof has been found that he was down with the lurgy or something on November 9th. All the arguments for him not being in the room that night come across as strained and pregnant with personal agenda. Even if we had ten Pollies and Annies to inform our views, no Kate and just the one Mary, you'd still be short of a decent case for insisting she had to be killed by someone else. With so few examples to go on, there is no case for insisting anything of the sort.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cap'n Jack]

This is a thread you could really get your teeth into.
Thank god I ain't got none.
I'll just shuffle off and chew on a piece of dried tumbleweed.

[Sam Flynn]

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

Nobody believes that, Nov9. The salient point is that the majority of those killers (perhaps, indeed, all but one of them) weren't into cutting out their victims' internal organs.