View Single Post
Old 04-11-2014, 06:38 PM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,359

Not to spoil the moment here ...but to say this was a "series" of murders with no apparent motive isnt exactly correct, because we have a deduced motive for one of them given to us by a medical expert. Set aside the story that goes along with the premise for a minute and focus on the fact that the suggestion is that Annie Chapman was killed so that her killer could do exactly what he did to her, take her uterus...what was the quote, "there were no meaningless cuts"?...and he showed some knife skill and anatomy savvy at the same time, for certain.

Motive. Its the whole enchilada.

How these women were killed specifically isnt really the determining factor for connecting one to another, ascertaining why they were killed in the first place surely could do that. Killers may change almost any aspect of their crimes... if their motivations are Violent or Sexual or in general nonspecific, but chances are in serial crime the reason that they kill in the first place, why they kill, is the same reason they keep killing. If the evidence says that they were most probably killed by someone acting out some deranged fantasies, then the chances are we shouldnt be looking for any more than just 1 or 2 psychopaths. But we dont have enough evidence to determine that conclusively...therefore, the probable actual motives for at least 4 of the Canonical Group cannot be stated with any certainty. Thats why I agreed with "no apparent motive". ...with the above exception.

2 of the women were seen in the company of men a short time before their murder, 1 was very likely in her own bed sleeping, or not sleeping, when she is murdered. We dont know any of the men that they were supposedly seen with. We dont know Blotchy, never found... we dont know Broadshouldered Man or parcel fella at 12:35, to my knowledge neither were found...we dont know Sailor Man, assuming Lawende couldnt identify him as he claimed within a fortnight of the sighting...or if any of those men could have reason to menace those women.

We do know that any killer can and may deface a corpse in a variety of ways, and that this doesnt mean thats what the killer sought when he committed the murder in the first place. Destruction of a corpse can be done by anyone in a state of temporary insanity...which I would think applies to manslaughter kinds of scenarios. Premeditated murder of a stranger is uncommon. Random acts of murder of strangers even more rare.

Some seem a lot like terrorist acts to me...and AP Wolf as I recall. In a town rife with terrorists, at a time when HMG relationships with said terrorists were being outed, when spies were getting 5,000L to "tell-all" at public hearings, and the possible support of the Irish Self rule factions within the Parliament itself being it possible that one or more of these women were killed in relation to their knowledge or status within those kinds of groups? Could Kates relationship with Irishman Thomas Conway, or Marys alleged courtesan excursion to Paris at a time when many Irish terrorists acts were initiated there, it possible either or both were killed because of something they knew, or people they knew within those groups?

Isnt the fact that the timing of that commission..., and the fact that many folks were precariously perched during that period,...being exposed as traitors, looking at poverty, jail, or worse if their secrets were revealed,... is conspicuous when juxtaposed with the Ripper crimes? I believe that some individuals at risk during those hearings were capable of murder to save their own skins. Some may have hung out in the East End.

With the hearings beginning, when would the most likely time for any potential witnesses to disappear? Just before and just as the hearings began I would imagine. Which would be the same time period that "Jack" arrived in.

Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote