Different Killers

[Batman]

I see no reason why he wouldn't have also assaulted women who got away. These are victims of his crimes too, even without slit throats. Ada Wilson's attacker has a strong resemblance to MJK's Blotchy face. She survived.

Show me examples of this multiple killer hypothesis frm history.

I can show you a gauntlet of serial lust killers whose MO change even more than what you see here with plenty who got away also.

[Harry D]

Hello Lynn,

Still got the sense of humour I see!

In determining whether a series of crimes are connected a number of factors need to be considered. For instance, how rare are the crimes in question? In the case of Liz Stride, if we simply focus on the basic facts that she was murdered in Whitechapel, in the open, with her throat severely cut, then I would argue that this is a very rare crime for the period, indeed. In fact, as I have asked a number of times now, prior to 1888 are there any other examples of a victim being found in Whitechapel, in the open, i.e. rather than domestic surroundings, with their throat cut? Funnily enough I've yet to receive a single reply! Why, therefore, were/are these types of crimes so obviously rare? Answer: because very few people are capable of committing them.

Of course, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly were also prostitutes living in Whitechapel who had their throats cut, although I would concede that Kelly was killed indoors, although there is no evidence that this was a far more common domestic killing, and Eddowes was technically murdered just outside the Whitechapel border, which I don't consider significant.

Now I ask myself, what are the chances of not one but at least 2 killers emerging from the same small district, i.e.Whitechapel, in the same year, and capable of committing these same rare type of crimes? Additionally, what are the chances that they both decide to kill on the same night? Slim, and Slim's just left town!

In making a likely connection between two or more murders we need to consider similarities and differences. So what does the Stride murder have in common with the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly?

Firstly, they were all known prostitutes. Secondly, they were all killed in 1888. Thirdly, they all had their throats severely cut. Fourthly, there were no obvious suspects. Fifthly, with the exception of Kelly they were all murdered in a non-domestic setting. Sixthly, there is a strong indication that they all had their throats cut when they were on or near to the ground, indicating a strategy on behalf of the killer to avoid being covered in arterial spray,and possibly that the killer was experienced enough to have learned from past mistakes. Seventhly, their killer was cunning, or lucky, enough to escape justice. Eighthly, they were all killed in or near to Whitechapel, a small district geographically, with a population of only around 80,000.

And what were the essential differences? Stride wasn't mutilated.

I therefore consider it a legitimate exercise to consider various possibilities as to why Stride wasn't mutilated. Firstly, it was an impulsive kill and the killer had a knife inadequate for the purpose. Secondly, the killer was intoxicated, which impacted on his judgement/ knife-skills. Thirdly, he was concerned about Schwartz/Pipeman returning with help. Fourthly, he found himself in a narrow passageway, in near- pitch black darkness, with the wrong type of knife, so mutilating Stride to his satisfaction, and removing organs, would have been virtually impossible. Fifthly, Stride was not taken by surprise and was able to cry out for help, causing the killer to flea the scene. Sixthly, he was concerned about the presence of what appeared to be a busy club adjacent to the murder scene. Sevethly, he thought, wrongly, that he'd heard someone about to exit the club. Eightly, he was disturbed by Diemshitz. Ninethly, a combination of one or more of these factors.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive.

I therefore conclude that, on balance of probabilities, Stride was a Ripper victim.

Hello, John.

Good post and I wholeheartedly agree. I think you might be peeing in the wind, however. Lynn's been around the block long enough to have heard all these counter-arguments before and he's stuck to his guns.

[John G]

I see no reason why he wouldn't have also assaulted women who got away. These are victims of his crimes too, even without slit throats. Ada Wilson's attacker has a strong resemblance to MJK's Blotchy face. She survived.

Show me examples of this multiple killer hypothesis frm history.

I can show you a gauntlet of serial lust killers whose MO change even more than what you see here with plenty who got away also.

Hi Batman,

I fully agree. If there was, indeed, and an entire platoon of throat cutters and mutilators operating in Whitechapel in 1888, a small district of some 80,000 people, all committing these exceptionally rare crimes, as some people seem to think, this would probably be totally unprecedented. I also agree that JtR may well have committed unsuccessful attempted murders, especially when he was inexperienced. This would not have been unusual for serial killers.

Ada Wilson is a good example of a possible attempted murder by a fledgling serial killer, especially as her throat was targeted.

I really cannot understand this modern trend of examining the miniature of each crime scenes, and only excepting a link if all of the ingredients are virtually identical. That's sufficient for determining a link beyond all reasonable doubt but surely not on the balance of probabilities?

I mean, some posters now express doubts about Kelly being a Ripper victim, a crime arguably unprecedented, at least in the UK, for its ferocity. Just how many individuals do they think are psychologically capable of committing these types of exceptionally rare murders? Unbelievable!

[John G]

Hello, John.

Good post and I wholeheartedly agree. I think you might be peeing in the wind, however. Lynn's been around the block long enough to have heard all these counter-arguments before and he's stuck to his guns.

Thanks Harry, appreciate your support. However, I don't expect to have convinced Lynn and, to be fair, I respect posters who have alternative views, even though I might strongly disagree with them. I'm just reading Trevor Marriott's new book and he expresses an opinion that Stride is not a Ripper victim but he can't rule out Mackenzie or Coles. Now putting Coles before Stride as a possible Ripper victim seems like a controversial view, to say the least! But I suppose who's to say he's definitely wrong?

[John Wheat]

To John

I mean, some posters now express doubts about Kelly being a Ripper victim, a crime arguably unprecedented, at least in the UK, for its ferocity. Just how many individuals do they think are psychologically capable of committing these types of exceptionally rare murders? Unbelievable!

I think some posters seem to believe there were three or four individuals in London who were psychologically capable of committing these types of exceptionally rare murders.

Cheers John

[Michael W Richards]

There really isn't any question as to whether there were other killers of women who resided in or about the East End in 1888, there were.

There were men who committed some 13 unsolved murders that are listed in the Whitechapel murder file, including 2 torsos, there are the cases where the culprits were caught, and there were cases like the young boy cut in half and stuffed into a barrel just north of London at the same time. There was Chapman, who later poisoned women, there was Deeming, there was Vasiliev...convicted years earlier of murdering and attacking prostitutes in Paris...the first named suspect in literature about the Ripper murders by the way, the first book on him as the suspect was published in 1888. There were nasties like Leather Apron, who Im unconvinced was actually Pizer. There are many examples of known killers residing within reach of the East End.

Did they all mutilate their victims? Did Jack mutilate all five of his alleged victims? Is disembowelling any more egregious than dismembering...is one more depraved an act than the other? Is slowly poisoning a supposed loved one and watching them die miserably any less monstrous than cutting them up when they are dead?

Forget the gore. Don't look at the pictures any more than is needed...the crux is that these women were killed by brutal people, not one brutal monster. There was one who created the mythical monster by cutting into his victims abdomens after slitting their throats twice...deeply. But Liz Stride could easily have been killed by a pissed off drunk. And Mary Kellys murder wasn't random victim acquisition...it was intimate and ghastly because it was the most emotional connection that any one of the killers had with their victims.

Its not simply the acts that are committed....its why they were. Anyone with a knife could have killed almost any one of the victims, but someone skilled technically killed some.

Cheers

[J6123]

You're right. Stride might have been killed by a pissed off drunk. We know the Ripper was very close by though, at about the same time, and he killed prostitutes in public streets, he slashed their throats, so there is a possibility it was him. Maybe the Ripper was a pissed off drunk that night? Although I agree it does seem difficult to imagine he'd attack a victim in plain sight of a witness, that is if Schwartz's statement was reliable...

If Mary Kelly's murder wasn't random victim acquisition, and it was ghastly and intimate and there was an emotional connection as you say, does that rule out the Ripper? Maybe it does, but I personally don't think Kelly's murderer was in a close relationship with her, cause I don't think her killer was capable of such things. Personally I think Kelly was a Ripper victim. I would guess the opportunity simply presented itself to the Ripper and he took it. She was a prostitute, she'd been seen taking men back to her room that night...

I wouldn't go as far to say that the Ripper was responsible for evey murder in the world in 1888, but.....I think at least 4 of the Whitechapel Murders can be linked to one man, with Stride a strong possibility and Tabram also quite possibly a Ripper victim.

[Batman]

Hi Batman,

I fully agree. If there was, indeed, and an entire platoon of throat cutters and mutilators operating in Whitechapel in 1888, a small district of some 80,000 people, all committing these exceptionally rare crimes, as some people seem to think, this would probably be totally unprecedented. I also agree that JtR may well have committed unsuccessful attempted murders, especially when he was inexperienced. This would not have been unusual for serial killers.

To date the multiple killer hypothesis crowd can't produce examples in history of this behaviour from several Lust Killers. Not a shred.

Yet we can produce tons of examples in history of single lust killers with deviations greater than the one's being pointed out here.

[John G]

Hello Michael,

I'm a little confused by your use of statistics. Murder of any type was certainly not common in Whitechapel, either prior to 1888 or after 1888. There were in fact no Whitechapel murders at all in the two years preceding 1888 and just one murder in 1889 and one in 1890. In fact, I believe that there were only 28 murders in the whole of London in 1888. And some time ago Colin Roberts produced statistics to show that in 1887 and again in 1889 only 11 adult women were murdered by knife in the whole of England!

So, no, I do do not accept that the types of murders that we see in Whitechapel, 1888, were particularly common, as you suggest. To the contrary, they were exceptionally rare.

Of course, if you're going to expand your criteria to include murders committed in France and the Torso murders- which took place over many years, and only one victim found in Whitechapel, in 1889 not 1888- then I'm sure you could find a number of other examples!

I do, however, take your point over unsolved murders. If we consider the C5, plus Smith and Tabram, no one was ever arrested, charged or convicted in relation to any of these murders. Arguably, there are no serious suspects. Doesn't that tell you something? It tells me that these were very unusual murders, very unlike the far more common domestic variety, where the perpetrator is obvious and easily caught, i.e. a husband who murders his wife in the family dwelling.

Regarding your point about the technical skill of the killer. Medical opinion was clearly divided on this point, and Dr Bond certainly thought that no technical skill was demonstrated in any of the murders. Of course, you could point to the removal of organs, and argue that this procedure required a degree of technical ability but, as I've noted previously, even in this regard it is by no means certain that the organs were removed by the killer.

Regards,

John

[lynn cates]

hot knife

Hello CD.

"So if there is a discrepancy between the police report and the newspaper account I would have to go with the former."

Agreed again. And he was "lighting" his pipe. Mistranslation for "lighting his knife"?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

"That's old news Dicky."

Hello John. Thanks.

"Still got the sense of humour I see!"

Of course. No other way to deal with all the nonsense.

"In determining whether a series of crimes are connected a number of factors need to be considered. For instance, how rare are the crimes in question?"

In a 3 year period, about 10-12 women were killed. rare? Don't know.

"In the case of Liz Stride, if we simply focus on the basic facts that she was murdered in Whitechapel, . . ."

Umm, St. George-in-the-East?

" . . . in the open, with her throat severely cut, then I would argue that this is a very rare crime for the period, indeed."

Don't forget, she was killed on Berner st. How many OTHERS were killed on Berner? Rare indeed.

"In fact, as I have asked a number of times now, prior to 1888 are there any other examples of a victim being found in Whitechapel, in the open, i.e. rather than domestic surroundings, with their throat cut? Funnily enough I've yet to receive a single reply!"

Know why? A curious mixture of ignorance and apathy, viz, I don't know and I don't care. And I REFUSE to disguise my thinking under quasi-mathematics.

"Why, therefore, were/are these types of crimes so obviously rare? Answer: because very few people are capable of committing them."

Or, because few committed them.

"Of course, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly were also prostitutes living in Whitechapel who had their throats cut, . . ."

What evidence for Eddowes being a prostitute? But don't allow such reasoning to interrupt the standard "narrative."

" . . . although I would concede that Kelly was killed indoors, although there is no evidence that this was a far more common domestic killing, and Eddowes was technically murdered just outside the Whitechapel border, which I don't consider significant."

Which emphasises that significance lies in the MIND of the investigator. (And some lived in Spitalfields. Let me guess--not significant?)

"Now I ask myself, what are the chances of not one but at least 2 killers emerging from the same small district, i.e.Whitechapel, in the same year, and capable of committing these same rare type of crimes? Additionally, what are the chances that they both decide to kill on the same night? Slim, and Slim's just left town!"

And yet, a mere two miles distant, another woman had her throat cut. And her case was ENTIRELY unrelated. Let me guess--not significant?

"In making a likely connection between two or more murders we need to consider similarities and differences. So what does the Stride murder have in common with the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly?"

Umm, she died? (Oops! That's CD's line. Sorry)

"Firstly, they were all known prostitutes."

No.

"Secondly, they were all killed in 1888."

But what of McKenzie and Coles?

"Thirdly, they all had their throats severely cut."

And two of them twice--with parallel cuts.

"Fourthly, there were no obvious suspects."

Same with ALL unsolved crime.

"Fifthly, with the exception of Kelly they were all murdered in a non-domestic setting."

Exceptions already?

"Sixthly, there is a strong indication that they all had their throats cut when they were on or near to the ground, indicating a strategy on behalf of the killer to avoid being covered in arterial spray,and possibly that the killer was experienced enough to have learned from past mistakes."

One of two options--on the ground, not on the ground. Obviously, this is the clincher.

"Seventhly, their killer was cunning, or lucky, enough to escape justice."

Nice bifurcation. So how does the disjunction "luck or skill' help you here?

"Eighthly, they were all killed in or near to Whitechapel, a small district geographically, with a population of only around 80,000."

How near is near? One mile? Two miles? What?

"And what were the essential differences? Stride wasn't mutilated."

Nor did she have nearly so deep a cut. Nor did she have parallel cuts. Nor was she on her back.

"I therefore consider it a legitimate exercise to consider various possibilities as to why Stride wasn't mutilated. Firstly, it was an impulsive kill and the killer had a knife inadequate for the purpose. Secondly, the killer was intoxicated, which impacted on his judgement/ knife-skills. Thirdly, he was concerned about Schwartz/Pipeman returning with help. Fourthly, he found himself in a narrow passageway, in near- pitch black darkness, with the wrong type of knife, so mutilating Stride to his satisfaction, and removing organs, would have been virtually impossible. Fifthly, Stride was not taken by surprise and was able to cry out for help, causing the killer to flea the scene. Sixthly, he was concerned about the presence of what appeared to be a busy club adjacent to the murder scene. Sevethly, he thought, wrongly, that he'd heard someone about to exit the club. Eightly, he was disturbed by Diemshitz. Ninethly, a combination of one or more of these factors."

Although many of these have threads dating back for years, let me ask Why did he have an inadequate knife?

In your reasoning above (which has been offered ad infinitum over the years) you have omitted the MAIN reason for positing a single killer. It is as follows:

"We haven't a bloody clue about what's going on. So, let's create a broad dumping ground, dub it "Jack the Ripper," and this will mask our inadequacies."

Now, back to sleep one and all.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

R I P

Hello Batman. Ada Wison? I suggest you read the Rip article on her. Think the Wilson nonsense has FINALLY been laid to rest.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

equation

Hello Harry. Thanks.

"Lynn's been around the block long enough to have heard all these counter-arguments before and he's stuck to his guns."

Yup. I find NONE of these convincing. However, IF either Polly or Annie had not been killed and we had only 4 slayings, the equation would change. See why?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Piser

Hello Michael.

"There were nasties like Leather Apron, who I'm unconvinced was actually Pizer."

Umm, no.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

bangers

Hello Batman.

"To date the multiple killer hypothesis crowd can't produce examples in history of this behaviour from several Lust Killers. Not a shred."

But why the devil should we want to?

Now, I challenge you to produce a single shred of evidence that there was a "Big Bang" BEFORE the "Big Bang."

And if no such evidence is forthcoming, then I shall conclude the world does not exist. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC