Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Fisherman]

Mabuse: It could just as well be that his thrill came from doing these crimes in places where he could be seen and he had a chance of being caught.

This chance may have been part of the lure for him.

In which case, he is planning; he's selecting a situation that gives him this potential to be caught, a suitable victim, and an escape route - and doing the crime anyway, because he gets some of his jollies from this brazen act. This is also why he displays his victims in such a vile tableau.

This has to go into the equation, yes - there were always the staircases, the backyards, the odd abandoned house, but he chose the open streets anyway. I think this may well be an indication of a conscious choice with a built-in thrill - and perhaps also a built-in sense that he was superior to those who wanted to catch him anyway.
The suggestion is well worth pondering.

It is very unlikely for a disorganised thinker to be this lucky, time after time.

Absolutely - and nowhere would it be more unlikely than in a crowded metropolis.

There were groups of men out looking for him, the police rounds had been increased. For him not to be seen at any time suggests he's doing more than randomly acting out on delusional impulses.

There were also people on the streets on their way to work and people walking the streets for other reasons. The thought that the Ripper arrived at and left all his murder spots without anybody seeing him is a far-fetched one. Reasonably, he was seen by others. But whereas a psychotic killer would arguably not have tried to hide what he had done, apparently this man did. So yes, we are most likely dealing with an organized planner.

That he is almost caught in Dutfield's yard and curtails that killing (yes I think it's likely this was the Whitechapel killer) shows that he is not disorganised; he stops what he's doing when interrupted and flees. Disorganised thinker experiencing a psychotic episode is not even on the same planet as Diemschutz.

The probability of an inhibited organ-harvesting from Nichols says the exact same thing to me. He was interrupted, and got out of it undetected nevertheless.
Plus he did not spill one single, small, diminutive drop of blood on Eddowes´clothes as he cut away at her stomach and secured her organs. There´s absolutely no sloppiness involved. Careful, steady, concentrated, that´s what I see here. Otherwise, he would have dripped and spattered all over her. But not a speck!

He clearly was stealthy, by definition. That's why he killed at night. This is evidence of organisation.

Yes, this is true. I also happen to think that Long, Cadosch and Richardson got it wrong or served porkies, whereas Phillips got it right - Annie Chapman was killed in as much darkness as the others. A chosen thing on behalf of the killer. Planning.

He is of course mentally ill.

His inside is not a sound one by any stretch, no. The outside may have seemed alright, though.

Personally, I find it difficult to ascribe this almost supernatural level of luck to him.

It seems clear that this killer was highly selective in target and goals, it would seem reasonable to extend that to his overall planning.

Wholeheartedly agreed. Of course.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Amanda, let me clear then. I am sorry. I should have used someone else as an example -- like Trevor or Lynn who are far more egregious in repeating dubious (better than spurious?) information until it becomes accepted.

Your post just happened to pop up at point where I was getting frustrated at still seeing the table runner repeated.

Sometimes you have to repeat things because so many people have their heads stuck up their arses that they don't see it or understand the relevance of what is being said the first time round

[Patrick S]

It could (just as well be that his thrill came from doing these crimes in places where he could be seen and he had a chance of being caught.

This chance may have been part of the lure for him.

In which case, he is planning; he's selecting a situation that gives him this potential to be caught, a suitable victim, and an escape route - and doing the crime anyway, because he gets some of his jollies from this brazen act. This is also why he displays his victims in such a vile tableau.

It is very unlikely for a disorganised thinker to be this lucky, time after time.

There were groups of men out looking for him, the police rounds had been increased. For him not to be seen at any time suggests he's doing more than randomly acting out on delusional impulses.

That he is almost caught in Dutfield's yard and curtails that killing (yes I think it's likely this was the Whitechapel killer) shows that he is not disorganised; he stops what he's doing when interrupted and flees. Disorganised thinker experiencing a psychotic episode is not even on the same planet as Diemschutz.



He clearly was stealthy, by definition. That's why he killed at night. This is evidence of organisation.

He is of course mentally ill.

Personally, I find it difficult to ascribe this almost supernatural level of luck to him.

It seems clear that this killer was highly selective in target and goals, it would seem reasonable to extend that to his overall planning.

It seems clear to whom? To you, obviously. Alas, you're dead wrong, of course.

All professionals that I've spoken to regarding both M.O. and signature, 'Jack the Ripper' is nearly a textbook definition of a 'disorgranized serial killer'. Not one has identified him as otherwise.

I'd quote Rob House's book and Roy Hazelwood of the BSU: "I don't know how anyone who knows anything at all about violent crime can say that these were organized crimes".

In your above post you've applied all of the fanciful and wishful thinking that produced the picture we've had of the dashing Victorian gentlemen, black bag in hand, charming ladies into the shadows....and them whistling off into the fog as screams of murder echo into the night. It's understandable that the realization that your fantasy is just that may cause you some discomfort. Take some time and come to terms.

As for luck time and time again..... Luck is dictated by circumtance isn't it? Obviously, as I mentioned (and you ignored), circumstances in the East End provided fertile ground for our killer's seeds of good fortune. Crime ridden streets. Inhabitants accostomed to cries for help and "murder". A ready supply of victims, willing to slip into the shadows....... Just because he was mentally ill does not mean he was an idiot. And just becuase he was not an idiot does not him organized.

You wrote a lot...but made no sense. "From Hell" was PROBABLY not an accurate depiction of the murders. I don't want to spoil your fantasy, though. Please carry on.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

... there are many here who take spurious bits of information like this and repeat them over and over until they become "conventional wisdom."

And that is the hard part - eliminating the "spurious", or even just the coincidental.

I find this on the University Of Leeds website as "Science and technology news" :

In addition to identifying DNA on the shawl, a further investigation was made by experts into the provenance of the shawl. The blue dye on it was tested using nuclear magnetic resonance techniques, which found that the shawl was Russian and predates the murders.

Science and technology news

NMR spectra allow you to identify chemical compounds - not their date or geography - which is not what the U. of Leeds quote seems to be saying.

cheers, gryff

[Patrick S]

Patrick S it seems to me that you have just as much of an 'agenda' to prove everything doesn't fit with Lechmere. To a new comer the hypocrisy of the concerted campaign to dismiss the Lechmere theory is ridiculous.

For instance have you ever investigated what kind of work he might have been doing as a carman? I'm guessing not but you might find it enlightening.

And it is not a fact that the Ripper did take special care to avoid being splattered with blood? Sometimes he strangled his victim to death to stop her heart beating and he also cut their necks in such a way that if there was spray, it would point away from him.

So saying the killer, be it Lechmere or anyone else, might be relatively free of blood is not incorrect.

Go back and read my history of posts on Cross. I'm a fan of the idea. The only problem I've found with it is that it's complete nonsense. Alas, I've said recently, on this thread I believe, that if new information comes to light, I shall be more than happy to reconsider Cross. As of now, he is and has always been a witness. I refuse to jump through the hoops required to make him a 'suspect'.

[Jeff Leahy]

All professionals that I've spoken to regarding both M.O. and signature, 'Jack the Ripper' is nearly a textbook definition of a 'disorgranized serial killer'. Not one has identified him as otherwise.

Sorry to keep adding stuff Patrick S

But of course this is largely what Dr Bonds report says swell. And some say it was the worlds first attempt at profiling.

But I totally agree that most experts I've spoken to see Jack as a disorganised Serial killer. Bill Beadle gives a pretty good account in 'Definitive Story'

Yours Jeff

[Patrick S]

Absolutely - and nowhere would it be more unlikely than in a crowded metropolis.

Absurd. Would he have been less likely to have been caught had he killed in quiet, uncrowded hamlets with little crime?

There were also people on the streets on their way to work and people walking the streets for other reasons. The thought that the Ripper arrived at and left all his murder spots without anybody seeing him is a far-fetched one.

He was seen. And heard. As I documented. In that he operated in a 'crowded metropolis' an alarm was not raised. If you read the witness statements you may notice a theme: "It was not unusual for people to come into the yard at all hours".... "It was not usual to hear cries of 'Murder' in the night".......


Reasonably, he was seen by others. But whereas a psychotic killer would arguably not have tried to hide what he had done, apparently this man did.

You are looking at result, not the actual exectution of things.

So yes, we are most likely dealing with an organized planner.

We most likely are not.

The probability of an inhibited organ-harvesting from Nichols says the exact same thing to me. He was interrupted, and got out of it undetected nevertheless.

Plus he did not spill one single, small, diminutive drop of blood on Eddowes´clothes as he cut away at her stomach and secured her organs. There´s absolutely no sloppiness involved. Careful, steady, concentrated, that´s what I see here. Otherwise, he would have dripped and spattered all over her. But not a speck!

This may be what it says to you...but...it's not what it says to people actually trained in this kind of thing. But, it fits your theory...so....

Yes, this is true. I also happen to think that Long, Cadosch and Richardson got it wrong or served porkies, whereas Phillips got it right - Annie Chapman was killed in as much darkness as the others. A chosen thing on behalf of the killer. Planning.

Lies where it helps you. Truth where it helps you. Perfect.

His inside is not a sound one by any stretch, no. The outside may have seemed alright, though.

My point for mentioning he was - of course - mentally ill. To be more clear: I think it was somewhat obvious. He was not a charming psychopath. He was a pathetic 'lunatic'. He could not have lured anyone who viewed him as anything other than a source of income. He was either pitiable or nearly silent.

It seems clear that this killer was highly selective in target and goals, it would seem reasonable to extend that to his overall planning.[/I]

Again, the RESULTS tell you that. The EXECUTION of the crimes.....if you think they were SELECTIVE.....well, I'm not sure there's anything anyone can say to help you.

Wholeheartedly agreed. Of course.

Of course you do.

All the best,
Fisherman

See above.

[Patrick S]

Sorry to keep adding stuff Patrick S

But of course this is largely what Dr Bonds report says swell. And some say it was the worlds first attempt at profiling.

But I totally agree that most experts I've spoken to see Jack as a disorganised Serial killer. Bill Beadle gives a pretty good account in 'Definitive Story'

Yours Jeff

Not at all, and please continue. Thanks for the info. You keep chiming in with things I've ommitted. It's much appreciated!

[Mabuse]

You wrote a lot...but made no sense. "From Hell" was PROBABLY not an accurate depiction of the murders. I don't want to spoil your fantasy, though. Please carry on.

"What we know of ourselves, we suspect of others."

I do not, in fact, think the laughable picture of Jack the Victorian gentleman, the Occult magickian, the Royal connection, etc, are viable. Nice strawman, though.

The problem you have for the disorganised thinker concept is that he kills at night.

Why does he do this? Why doesn't he kill during the day?

I suppose he could have had a day job - but then a disorganised thinker in the midst of a psychotic break wouldn't be able to hold one down.

I suppose he may have been in a hospital or the workhouse, but then he wouldn't be able to roam at night.

Killing at night - this is evidence of organisation. Of stealth. And it is enough to dispose of the disorganised Jack having a psychotic episode hypothesis.

As is the careful removal of organs.

As is the fact that he apparently doesn't arouse suspicion when he is seen - and he was seen - most notably by the prostitutes he lures to their deaths, when everyone in the area is terrified and in a state of alert. IOW he is able to disguise his madness.

And all the other elements of the crimes, appeal to authority fallacy notwithstanding.

[Theagenes]

Sometimes you have to repeat things because so many people have their heads stuck up their arses that they don't see it or understand the relevance of what is being said the first time round

I must have my head up my arse then as I still don't see the relevance of the 400,000 people whom Cornwell said shared the same haplotype as Sickert (12 years ago when we had only identified a fraction of the haplotype and subclades we know today) to the number of people who share completely different haplotypes found on the shawl. Why don't you explain to me the relevance of that 400,000 number that you quoted to the press?

[Abby Normal]

Fisherman - Do you honestly believe that 'Jack the Ripper' managed to 'approach and leave the murder spots undetected', 'leave(ing) no trail, no trace, no clue..' due to his cunning, intellect, planning, etc.?

I think we can also debate the 'kills silently' part, as well, since many witnesses stated they heard cries of 'Oh, murder!' quite frequently throughout the East End, thus most of these disturbances were ignored, but the for purposes of this discussion, let's concede that he DID kill silently.

I think it's important not to look at RESULT so much as EXECUTION. I do not think one can argue this point: The Whitechapel murderer was incredibly fortunate not to have been observed, caught in the act...on multiple occassions.

In Bucks Row, Cross (we KNOW your thoughts here so spare us this go 'round) and Paul come upon the body moments after the murder. Bretton and Tomkins could have come upon him. Emma Green or anyone in her household had only to look out the window to have witnessed the murder.

In Hanbury street, Albert Cadosh had only to peer over the fence. John Davis could have gone into the yard a bit earlier. John Richardson could have walked upon the crime in progress. Any number of neighbors had only to look out a window. These are all random events that could not be planned around. Yet, you see a cunning, meticulously executed plan where none could possibly exist.

In Dutfield's Yard, Louis Diemschutz may have ridden upon the killer immediately after the murder. Israel Schwartz likely witnessed the killer attack Stride. Morris Eagle was about Dutfield's Yard and, but for random chance, could have witnessed the murder in progress. Joseph Lave, could have stayed for a bit more fresh air or simply gone out later. These things cannot be planned around.

In Mitre Square, George Clapp or his wife could have looked out a window. PC Harvey, but for random chance, could have witnessed the murder of Eddowes. Lawende, Harris, Levey likely saw the killer moments before the murder. George Morris could have stepped outside at any moment and witnessed the murder and the murderer.

'Jack the Ripper', in my view, PLANNED nothing. He benefited from the nature of his environment: the East End was a couldron of vice and crime. These things were not unusual. He seems to have sought only one thing: Darkness (in that he didn't kill during daylight hours). His victims, on the other hand, controlled the situation and the environment. THEY sought only enough privacy to conduct business and get their pay. Being interrupted meant being either ignored or run off. Thus they chose sports that offered minimal privacy.

The Whitechapel Murders were the work of an unorganized and mentally ill serial killer. Just as he was not a 'medical man' with anatomical knowledge, he was NOT a stealth killer who managed to avoid detection through his cunning and intellect.

Hi Patrick
I think some experts categorize JtR as mixed type between organized and disorganized. Personally I think they lean more towards disorganized because they don't take into account that in that day and age with no car, the killer was forced to kill on the street, making it look to be more of the disorganized kind.

However, please consider:
there has to be some type of planning, as the ripper as disorganized (and severely mentally ill) brought out a sharp knife on the nights of the murders, engaged the victims and accompanied them to a secluded spot-highly unlikely. He also was sane and organized enough to be able to escape in the nick of time.

And if you believe in the GSG and double event as being the work of the ripper as IMHO seems most likely, well frankly no disorganized mad man could pull that off. Nor never be caught.

[Jeff Leahy]

And if you believe in the GSG and double event as being the work of the ripper as IMHO seems most likely, well frankly no disorganized mad man could pull that off. Nor never be caught.

Mark Dixie apparently managed to pull off a double attack while completely off his head on Majuana and Cocaine in an apparent 'psychotic Episode'?

Yours Jeff

[Patrick S]

"What we know of ourselves, we suspect of others."

I do not, in fact, think the laughable picture of Jack the Victorian gentleman, the Occult magickian, the Royal connection, etc, are viable. Nice strawman, though.

The problem you have for the disorganised thinker concept is that he kills at night.

Why does he do this? Why doesn't he kill during the day?

I suppose he could have had a day job - but then a disorganised thinker in the midst of a psychotic break wouldn't be able to hold one down.

I suppose he may have been in a hospital or the workhouse, but then he wouldn't be able to roam at night.

Killing at night - this is evidence of organisation. Of stealth. And it is enough to dispose of the disorganised Jack having a psychotic episode hypothesis.

As is the careful removal of organs.

As is the fact that he apparently doesn't arouse suspicion when he is seen - and he was seen - most notably by the prostitutes he lures to their deaths, when everyone in the area is terrified and in a state of alert. IOW he is able to disguise his madness.

And all the other elements of the crimes, appeal to authority fallacy notwithstanding.

The fact that he doesn't kill in broad daylight says - to you - that he's organized. Brilliant. Let's leave it there then. You seem to have invented a definition that suits you. Organized = Anyone who doesn't kill people in the daytime. I mean, he used a knife too. That's planning. Organized = Anyone who uses a weapon instead of his bare hands....in broad daylight.

Let's cut this debate short....for obvious reasons.

[Theagenes]

And that is the hard part - eliminating the "spurious", or even just the coincidental.

I find this on the University Of Leeds website as "Science and technology news" :



Science and technology news

NMR spectra allow you to identify chemical compounds - not their date or geography - which is not what the U. of Leeds quote seems to be saying.

cheers, gryff

Agreed. That comment greatly over simplifies what was actually determined. The NMR analysis determined that the dye was natural and made from woad (Asatis tinctoria). While is native to central Asia and eastern Europe, it was apparently a pretty common dye and presumably would have been readily available in any major garment manufacturing area. The suggestion that it was Russian seems to have come from the NMR scientist who said (according to Edwards) that it looked similar to dyes he had seen from St. Petersburg -- so purely anecdotal. As for the dating, all the NMR showed was that the dye was not synthetic, making it more likely to predate the murders. But as I mentioned earlier I've seen several natural dyed shawls as recent as the 1920s online (though not European).

[Mabuse]

Let's cut this debate short....for obvious reasons.

Because you have many pressing comments to make on YouTube?

You don't seem to be able to address salient points, you appear to rely on fallacy and deflection. Perhaps if you addressed the issues being raised in a rational manner rather than getting personal, you'd find the experience less stressful.

I realise that being wedded emotionally to a pet theory makes opposing viewpoints seem like a personal attack, this is why it is always better to stay objective.

Your argument simply isn't convincing to me. Sorry.