Why Mary had to die.

[Robert St Devil]

A serial killer who resources his talent for a political motive... Lord Mayors Show. One year anniversary of Trafalgar Square a few days off with a demonstration planned.

I was starting to wonder if Jack the Ripper was a phase killer, or a long-term serial killer who might be able to change his identity as his experience with his craft grew. But politics... That sounds like a radical killer.

If that was his ruse, then it worked: The Star, 10 Nov 1888
re: the Lord Mayors Show pageant

Two STAR boys, who, waving the placard cards announcing the Whitechapel murder, danced a demon dance before [the City Chamberlain] horse, amid the frantic laughter of the crowd.

[Pierre]

A serial killer who resources his talent for a political motive... Lord Mayors Show. One year anniversary of Trafalgar Square a few days off with a demonstration planned.

I was starting to wonder if Jack the Ripper was a phase killer, or a long-term serial killer who might be able to change his identity as his experience with his craft grew. But politics... That sounds like a radical killer.

If that was his ruse, then it worked: The Star, 10 Nov 1888
re: the Lord Mayors Show pageant

Two STAR boys, who, waving the placard cards announcing the Whitechapel murder, danced a demon dance before [the City Chamberlain] horse, amid the frantic laughter of the crowd.

Hi Robert,

he had no political motive. His motive was strictly personal.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

he had no political motive. His motive was strictly personal.

How are you able to make definite statements of this kind, Pierre, bearing in mind that you told me only a few days ago that your theory as to the killer's identity might be wrong?

Should we read the above as you saying, "I don't think he had a political motive, I think his motive was strictly personal"?

[Pierre]

Did the fact that Mary Kelly was living with Joe Barnett though have anything to do with the timing - I mean in a deliberate sense in that he needed to wait till Barnett was out of the way. What if Barnett had still been with her on the 8th/9th though? Was Barnett in on it all?

Hi,

And thanks a lot for your very good question.

I donīt think the Whitechapel killer needed to wait for anything. But as opportunities came his way, he took them.

We think we understand a lot of things that belong to the past. When we do, we write history about it and we read the history of others as well.

But Jack the Ripper had his own history. One has to understand that. He did not see everything we think he saw and we do not see what he saw.

So what did he see? Did he, as you said "wait" for Barnett to leave Mary Jane? Was that in his horizon? Or did he just see a woman living by her own and nothing else? Or did he find her on the street, knowing nothing about her past?

I believe that the killer made some very specific choices and those choices could best be described within his MO. The main purpose when he left each murder site was to get fast attention. We know that since he always got that. So that was a main feature of his MO: to plan for a fast discovery.

One could even say this murderer had a thing for timing the discovery of the victims. He specialized on it. He managed to kill and mutilate and get away only minutes before the police showed up. Otherwise, serial killers usually hide their victims. But he was quite the opposite. Why? It has got to do with his motive.

Now, how fast could the discovery be when he killed and mutilated indoors? Certainly he would not have expected a discovery within minutes or even some hours, otherwise he would not have performed such extensive mutilations on Kelly. He knew he had time to "work" for a longer time at this murder site.

But more extensive mutilations and therefore longer time for performing them was not the only reason for his choice of victims. If it had been, he would have done so more frequently - and if extensive mutilations, i.e. worse than on Chapman and Eddowes, had been his purpose, he would not have chosen to kill out in the open. But he did three dismemberment murders, and then he could work for a longer time in a more advanced way. But the paramount purpose of them was not to enjoy the murders and mutilations but to distribute the pieces around London to get a fast discovery. He always wanted a fast discovery.

So when could he expect discovery of Kelly - given that this was his purpose? He could expect discovery the next day. This was Lord Mayorīs Day. So the reason for giving the discovery a little more time was the interest of timing the show.

All this was in his horizon because we know he made this happen.

Joe Barnett was not the Whitechapel killer according to my sources.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

How are you able to make definite statements of this kind, Pierre, bearing in mind that you told me only a few days ago that your theory as to the killer's identity might be wrong?

Should we read the above as you saying, "I don't think he had a political motive, I think his motive was strictly personal"?

Hi David,

Thanks, I appreciate your question.

I only speak from the point of view of my own research. So as I have said earlier, one has to consider my statements as hypothetical.

But when you say "I think" - I think that definition is perhaps to wide, since it could referre to pure ideas, to statements made on social bias or wishful thinking, or even taste. So I would not interpret my texts like that.

And if I do say "I think" - I mean it and I mean that this should be put in contrast to knowing.

Because from what my sources give me, I sometimes know things - but I also sometimes think I know. And this I struggle with all the time.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Thanks, I appreciate your question.

I only speak from the point of view of my own research. So as I have said earlier, one has to consider my statements as hypothetical.

But when you say "I think" - I think that definition is perhaps to wide, since it could referre to pure ideas, to statements made on social bias or wishful thinking, or even taste. So I would not interpret my writings like that.

And if I do say "I think" - I mean it and I mean that this should be put in contrast to knowing.

Because from what my sources give me, I sometimes know things - but I also sometimes think I know. And this I struggle with all the time.

I appreciate your answering my post Pierre so I hope you will not be offended if I describe what you have written above as complete and utter gibberish.

[David Orsam]

Joe Barnett was not the Whitechapel killer according to my sources.

But Pierre, if you don't know the killer's identity (and you have conceded that your theory about it might be wrong) then it follows that your sources might be wrong, yes?

Therefore, are you prepared to admit that Joe Barnett could have been the Whitechapel killer?

[Pierre]

I appreciate your answering my post Pierre so I hope you will not be offended if I describe what you have written above as complete and utter gibberish.

Hi David,

I thought you would perhaps interpret it like that.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

But Pierre, if you don't know the killer's identity (and you have conceded that your theory about it might be wrong) then it follows that your sources might be wrong, yes?

Therefore, are you prepared to admit that Joe Barnett could have been the Whitechapel killer?

Hi David,

As I said, I think I have found him. So there is an identity.

Of course Barnett could have been the Whitechapel killer. That could even have been the reason for moving out - that he was planning on coming back. And he could also have murdered the other canonical victims before Kelly.

What would you say his motive would be?

Are there any sources pointing towards him?

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

I thought you would perhaps interpret it like that.

That was very perceptive of you.

[David Orsam]

As I said, I think I have found him.

Yes, you have certainly said that but you have also agreed with me that you might not have found him so I would suggest that you need to keep that in mind in your posts before you make unqualified statements like "the killer was not this" or "the killer was not that".

Of course Barnett could have been the Whitechapel killer.

Thank you, that's all I wanted to know.

What would you say his motive would be?

Are there any sources pointing towards him?

You can probably find the answers to your questions here:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/14.html

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Robert,

he had no political motive. His motive was strictly personal.

Regards Pierre

Hello Pierre.
That's the thing of it. I choose permanent words that i only ever intend to use vaguely. As in, my use of 'political'. I didnt mean to imply the Capital P version of the term - Socialist, Liberal, etc. Moreso the lower case version. The everyman politics we play when we watch the nightly newscast.

If he is interfering with the Lord Mayors show, then he must have some awareness that he is attempting to connect his crime to it. That, for me, suggests that he is motivated beyond solely the sexual (or femicidal) gratification that he derives from each of his murders.

Personal reasons, for me, suggest vendetta or vengeance. By political, i intended, he was making a historical fact of himself that superceded the Lord Mayor, and he was using his craft to do it.

[Robert St Devil]

One could even say this murderer had a thing for timing the discovery of the victims. He specialized on it. He managed to kill and mutilate and get away only minutes before the police showed up. Otherwise, serial killers usually hide their victims. But he was quite the opposite. Why? It has got to do with his motive.

Regards Pierre

JACK THE RIPPER: i'll show the Lord Mayor just how unsuicidal I am!

If he timed the murde of Mary Jane to the LordMayors show, he didn't do it for the benefit of the Lord Mayor. He did it for the benefit of the press.

Fast discoveries mean the sooner it becomes news\media*.

* Conspiracies be damned.

[Mayerling]

No, the sitting Lord Mayor was De Keyser.

One month before the murderer of Kelly there was an interview with De Keyser in the press, where he stated that the assasin was "undoubtedly mad" and that it "would not be surprising if he should soon commit suicide".

(See for instance The Freemanīs Journal, October 9, 1888, p. 5)

Regards Pierre

De Peyser came from a Belgian family and made his money by building a large hotel on the land that was once Bridewell Palace and woman's prison. He had been Sheriff of London in 1882, which is a link with the police. Since your broad hints of fury directed at the outgoing Lord Mayor dealt with his dismissing Jack as "undoubtedly mad" and a future suicide, this happens to have been common thoughts of many people who could not see Jack as a thoughtful individual plotting each step for a particular goal or result.

I really can't see him singling out the out going Mayor instead of Whitestead, the incoming one.

Also November 9 has other significance. It was the birthday of the Prince of Wales, Albert Edward (the future King Edward VII). You might as well pinpoint Lord Mordaunt, whose wife's affairs in 1875 led to a big divorce suit involving Prince Bertie having to give testimony in court, deciding to get back at Bertie by this series of murders.

And what has De Peyster have to do with Major Smith or a portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots?

I have been fairly willing to hope you do produce some final result that is worthy of respect but this (I'm sorry to say) sneaky way of tantalizing our curiosity is really somewhat contemptible. If you don't want to tell us what the truth may be until you are certain - don't keep doing this but wait until you have the last bit of information.

And by the way. you did not answer that riddle I gave you. Where do you hide a tree?

[Karl]

And by the way. you did not answer that riddle I gave you. Where do you hide a tree?

Behind a bigger one?