Discussion : Did Jack The Ripper Ever Even Exist ?

[Lynn Cates]

2 quick points

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Two quick points (work beckons).

1. It's not 4 hours sleep. If he's butchering at home, we must subtract that time.

2. If he's NOT butchering at home, surely he is not spreading the offal on the ground to rework? But where then?

Cheers.
LC

[Mr. Lucky]

Hi Lynn

No. Actually, his story was that he was butchering sheep and removing their heads and entrails.

Here you're claiming Isenschmid's story was he was 'butchering sheep'

Dr. Mickle said that, in his conversation with Isenschmid, he learned that Jacob claimed to be going to market, and getting sheep heads and entrails and then reworking them for sale to coffee shops.

When, what he actually said was he was getting them from the market.

So, who is making the leap from buying sheep heads and entrails from the market, to 'butchering sheep' ?

So I wonder whether his sheep "heads" and "entrails" were not part of his delusion?

But which delusion, the going to market delusion or the butchering sheep delusion?

Best Wishes

[Lynn Cates]

J I

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"I don`t think he was butchering at home. Does the landlord or wife tell us this?"

Actually, seems that Dr. Mickle was told this by JI himself.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

resale

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

I think that was a mutatis mutandis for the claim about pig butchering. Of course he did not claim to slaughter sheep. As he said, he reworked them. And it was specifically heads and entrails. Sorry for the extra egg in the pudding.

Actually, I would not be surprised if, earlier in his peregrinations, he did not do exactly that at the markets. He did pop round to Elthorne with the ox tail. So why not rework animals for resale?

But I DON"T think he went to market when he was in the deepest part of his phase, roughly, just before he was arrested.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

I see on amazon.com that two days ago a Kindle fiction book was "published" entitled Jack the Ripper Doesn't Exist, by Paul Juser. Ironically, given the fact that it's a kindle-only publication, the author's website is www.printisbetter.com. But you'll find no more info there than is at Amazon. As I mentioned, it's a fiction book, but I thought I'd bring it up on this thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stuart Taylor]

......or Did The Whitechapel Murderer ever even exist ?
The inference being that there was not a serial killer at work in the East End beginning in the Fall of 1888.
No two women, therefore, being killed by the same hand.

Inspired by a remark made by Rob House on another thread in this section.

Unless I have misunderstood, you appear to be suggesting that (rather than one JTR) there were five murderers about in the same few months in the same square mile, all killing in a similar fashion?

Is this even remotely plausible?

[Rob House]

Unless I have misunderstood, you appear to be suggesting that (rather than one JTR) there were five murderers about in the same few months in the same square mile, all killing in a similar fashion?

Is this even remotely plausible?

No, it's not even remotely possible.

[Phil Carter]

Point of order.

I believe..though could be wrong, that the true definition if a serial killer is one who kills three or more victims.

That means that a killer can kill two and not be a serial killer.


Phil

[Big Jon]

Point of order.

I believe..though could be wrong, that the true definition if a serial killer is one who kills three or more victims.

That means that a killer can kill two and not be a serial killer.


Phil

That is the current FBI definition (was originally four). Serial killers crimes are also generally required to:

1. Be distinct/separate events.
2. Have an emotional cooling off period in between.

These are to distinguish serial killers from mass murderers and spree killers.

Ed Gein for example was not a serial killer according to the FBI definition (had it been around at the time) as he only had two confirmed victims. But he undoubtedly has the psychology of one.

[Howard Brown]

There have been a couple of examples of people being classified as serial killers who only murdered two people and were for one reason or the other prevented from a third. I have read about both. I do not recall the
names of the two at the moment. It was because of the way the first two had been murdered, the social group they were in, and other factors.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yeah but Jack killed at least Four, probably seven or eight

So he was a serial killer

Yours Jeff

[Howard Brown]

Who said he wasn't Jeff ?

Gein could be considered a s.k. for the reason I mentioned in my post. It is undoubtedly a fact he would have killed several more. They just nipped his fucking sick ass in the bud.

[Lynn Cates]

concatenation

Hello Stuart. Not only is it plausible, but almost surely the case.

"Jack" is an unfortunate concatenation of events.

Cheers.
LC

[Howard Brown]

No, Jack the Ripper is NOT almost surely the case of of some concatenation of events.

Stuart...don't be fooled or hornswoggled by these people.

If there were dissimilarities between some of the murders, some of these people use that to claim that particular victim was murdered by a different hand.

[Sam Flynn]

Ed Gein for example was not a serial killer according to the FBI definition (had it been around at the time) as he only had two confirmed victims. But he undoubtedly has the psychology of one.

Jon,

Your point raises the interesting question that, had he not been caught, how likely was he to have committed sufficient murder(s) to tip him into the "SK" category? Very likely, I'd say. Same goes for other single/double murderers, of course, not just Gein.

I'd suggest that the FBI designation needs to be seen merely as a descriptive label, rather than as an empirical "diagnostic" category in itself.