Thread: Lipski
View Single Post
  #132  
Old 03-06-2017, 10:03 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
We've been through this before, Michael. You live in this fantasy world where the killer must be locked into the exact same victim profile and method every single time. This isn't a movie, serial killers have been known to deviate from certain ritualistic behaviour, and in the Ripper's case he didn't so much deviate as escalate in violence. As for the victimology, most serial killers are opportunists who will seek out whatever vulnerable prey they can find. On the first two occasions it happened to be two middle-aged prostitutes, but that doesn't mean that he would eschew from killing a younger victim should be the circumstances avail themselves of one.
Harry,
This is really much simpler than its been made out to be....when we have the first 2 consecutive Unsolved murders assumed to be Jack the Rippers victims almost identical in every important aspect, why would we assume he changes after that murder? Because he was interrupted with Stride? There is no evidence that happened. The evidence suggests the murder was a completed act. Because Kate was mutilated after the throat cuts? Her mutilations were done by someone who had less skill, and clearly no focal point on her physiology. We also have evidence that she may have intended to give police a name of a local man for the unsolved killings...which if true,...the story she was going to the police I mean,...then that's a motive for murder. We then have a woman who was in her mid twenties, in her own room and bed, inside a tiny courtyard, being taken apart with clear evidence of anger exhibited. We also have the victims admission, again in story form, that she was in a love triangle. Again...possible motive for murder...if the party on the outside is dangerous. We have evidence that this man named Joe "mistreated' Mary in the past.

Remember, the contemporary "opinion" was that Five women were connected by killer, but the evidence available links zero of them with any killer.

My question to you and my naysayer following is this....on what grounds do we disregard evidence from the first 2 murders that suggests the same killer, the same methodology, the same Victimology and the same signature?
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote