I think that the LISK case in so many ways parallels the Jack the Ripper case. Not necessarily in specifics of the crimes themselves nor the offender(s), but in why it was not solved. I think that, just as in the Ripper case, certain things are cluttering up the clearness of vision of how simple things really are. For example, in the Ripper case many have just been dazzled by the contradictory levels of disorganized and organized behaviors of the offenses. I don’t see the contradiction. Why? Because to me its simple really, there is more involved than what is taken into consideration but the base crimes are less complicated. Simply put, I see the Ripper’s crimes as 1) Polly Ann Nichols, 2) Annie Chapman 3) Liz Stride, and 4.) Catherine Eddowes. Liz Stride I am unsure of but leaning towards a yes it was related but he did not get to finish what he started. There may have been more, but I do not think that Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim. Now, how did I come to this conclusion? A. Victimology, B. Offense behaviors, C. Crime scene analysis, D. Offender typology. Now, why do I not see the contradiction in disorganized and organized behaviors? Answer: Because I think the two behaviors were not made by the same individuals. The level of disorganization in the crimes against Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, and Catherine Eddowes, (Liz Stride is not as profound disorganization as the others) does not fit with an offender who takes the time to carefully extract organs. Conclusion: Taking into consideration the environment and the sociology of this place at this time and point in history, I think that the organ extractions were not done by the Ripper, but someone else, either at the morgue or before then sometime while the body was not in official custody, in order to sell them. If one studies the history of the time, one can easily see this is not so far-fetched an idea as it sounds. Why do I not consider Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? A. Victimology, B. Offense behaviors, C. Crime scene analysis, D. Offender typology. This was obviously a very personal killing, not like the previous ones. Even Catherine Eddowes’ murder pales in comparison to the “intimacy” involved in the offenses against Mary Kelly. This person did not want to just kill her, they wanted to obliterate her entire existence. This comes from a lot of time stewing in resentment and basking in fantasies of destruction, in other words: There was a long history between Mary Kelly and her killer, and levels of organization that (when removing the whole organ removal concept as being non-related to the Ripper) was just not found with the Ripper victims. Conclusion: These were not committed by the same individual.
How does this relate to the LISK? Well, it seems to me that in ways the LISK has been overcomplicated and yet the simplest facts have been overlooked—Just as in the Ripper Case. Just as in the Ripper case, there have been umpteen conspiracy theories, nefarious claims, and suspected persons of involvement ranging from politicians to doctors to police and everything in between. Just as in the Ripper case, there have been whispers of groups of rich deviants and devil worshippers, while what seems to me are obvious clues are overlooked. As in the Ripper case with the 3 (or 4) murders previous not containing consistent behavioral aspects and being entirely set apart from what occurred with Mary Kelly—It is also apparent to me in the LISK case that A. the older dismemberment murders are not related to the four girls found at Gilgo, B. The levels of organization and “skill” if you will of the LISK are not consistent when the phonecalls are taken into consideration, hence, I believe that either 1. The phone calls were not made by the killer or 2. The phone calls were made by the killer as a deliberate tool to mislead. In the Ripper case an additional note that separates the other murders from that of Mary Kelly is the motive and general ambience of the crime. Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, (Liz Stride?), and Catherine Eddowes’ deaths showed anger and detachment, with the motive apparently being an expression of anger. Mary Kelly’s murder is much more intimate, the motive is not just an expression of anger, it is apparent in Mary Kelly’s death that the offender wanted to obliterate her entire existence. It could be said, then, that the motive was more akin to an askew love than to anger. In looking at the four girls at Gilgo, there is no apparent motive. This within itself is a flag. With sadists, there are obvious cues and clues, same with the “normal” serial killer. There is none of that with the girls at Gilgo. Hence: I think it has been overcomplicated. I do not think these girls were killed by a serial killer, but by someone who wanted them dead. There is a BIG difference. Serial killers do not want dead victims. Death is just a side effect of getting what they want and need. It is my opinion that someone wanted these four girls found at Gilgo dead and, so, made them dead. I really think it is that simple. I don’t know why, but I do feel that this is a very logical conclusion.