Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Harry D]

You believe cutting is the definitive variable that shows us serial activity?

I believe a series of unsolved murders where the victim's throats are cut, their bodies eviscerated, and organs excised, within a short space of time, in the same localized area, shows a definite pattern, yes.

Almost every man in that area had, or could get, knives. Many of them were criminals, some who were later revealed to be killers. All these bad guys stayed off the streets so one madman could own the neighborhood? Does that really sound plausible to you?

There were plenty of violent men in that neighbourhood with access to blades, but how many of them would've gone around cutting throats and disemboweling women? If there were, then why did this type of murder suddenly spike in the autumn of 1888?

[Hunter]

An expert is someone who offers support for your theory with their theory.

[Abby Normal]

An expert is someone who offers support for your theory with their theory.

Her blood ran down their gutter inside the gate for almost 20 feet. What...just suck that up with straws and spit into the street?

Wow.

Uh, how about throw some water or even a mug or two of beer on it Einstein.
Besides, it wouldn't be the murder scene any more would it Sherlock.

[c.d.]

"There were plenty of violent men in that neighbourhood with access to blades, but how many of them would've gone around cutting throats and disemboweling women? If there were, then why did this type of murder suddenly spike in the autumn of 1888?"

An even better question is if all it takes is violent men with access to blades then why is it that women with cut throats who had internal organs removed not a worldwide occurrence throughout history?

c.d.

[c.d.]

"Uh, how about throw some water or even a mug or two of beer on it Einstein.
Besides, it wouldn't be the murder scene any more would it Sherlock."

Hello Abby,

"Einstein", "Sherlock". What's with the insults? Can't you make your point without them? That's just not cool.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

The point you appear to be sidestepping is, that people who are not considered 'experts' had long since arrived at the same opinion. So what value can there be to the point you were trying to make?
And, I do know from Stewarts own lips himself, that even he does not consider himself an 'expert'.

What exactly is an 'expert' Michael, maybe we can all learn something here?

Despite the sarcasm Ill answer Jon...someone who is well read on all the materials available on a subject, someone who has contributed to that wealth of knowledge by virtue of their own research and discoveries, someone who is intelligent and has experience in some form of a subject or subjects that is/are directly related to the primary subject matter, and someone who is intelligent enough to know that Hunters responses are merely for his own entertainment.

Im not introducing a rogue idea when I suggest that there are some within any known study subject that are better equipped, more adept mentally and more informed than others am I?

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Harry D;348153]I believe a series of unsolved murders where the victim's throats are cut, their bodies eviscerated, and organs excised, within a short space of time, in the same localized area, shows a definite pattern, yes.

One pattern was that there were quite a few murder cases that didn't get solved during that period.

There were plenty of violent men in that neighbourhood with access to blades, but how many of them would've gone around cutting throats and disemboweling women? If there were, then why did this type of murder suddenly spike in the autumn of 1888

At least you added disembowelling to the filter Harry..cause plenty of people had close knife encounters in that neighborhood at that time.

Again, the crimes within the Unsolved Murder case were there without having a known link by killer for even 2 womens murders, let alone the amount we would need to discuss serial killer cases. Generally they kill more than 2, don't they.

[Michael W Richards]

Wow.

Uh, how about throw some water or even a mug or two of beer on it Einstein.
Besides, it wouldn't be the murder scene any more would it Sherlock.

What? The woman had almost bled dry, do you realize what kind of volume that is? Secondly, they have to remove the body which would expose them to the risk of being caught by authorities while doing so, or at the very least being seen doing so.

Just so you know I believe its at least possible that they might have considered doing just that...using Diemshitz's cart and pony. I think Louis arrived before he said he did, (primarily because a witness was at her door from around 12:56-(Goldstein), until 1 am and she saw that no-one arrived at 40 Berner at 1am), and he and some others debated how to handle the mess they found themselves in.

[Wickerman]

Despite the sarcasm Ill answer Jon...

Michael, you did narrow the field of knowledge down just a little when you said:
"First Ill address this......I have narrowed the kills of one man in these cases to 2.... perhaps 3 Jon, as Ive stated many times, which yes, means someone killed at least 2 women. The most base measure of a serial killer...2 or more victims. I believe thats what the known evidence suggests...and Ive found agreement with that conclusion by many here who by virtue of their work in this field are considered experts."

You wrote that you have adopted an opinion expressed by some who are considered "experts". This was offered as if the attribution to these "experts" somehow bolstered your opinion.
Yet I pointed out that it was not necessary to be an "expert" to hold that particular opinion.

The belief (because that is all it is), that no more than 3 victims fell, with reasonable certainty to the same killer, is not the exclusive opinion of "several experts", so I was failing to see why you chose to lean on that emphasis.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, you did narrow the field of knowledge down just a little when you said:
"First Ill address this......I have narrowed the kills of one man in these cases to 2.... perhaps 3 Jon, as Ive stated many times, which yes, means someone killed at least 2 women. The most base measure of a serial killer...2 or more victims. I believe thats what the known evidence suggests...and Ive found agreement with that conclusion by many here who by virtue of their work in this field are considered experts."

You wrote that you have adopted an opinion expressed by some who are considered "experts". This was offered as if the attribution to these "experts" somehow bolstered your opinion.
Yet I pointed out that it was not necessary to be an "expert" to hold that particular opinion.

The belief (because that is all it is), that no more than 3 victims fell, with reasonable certainty to the same killer, is not the exclusive opinion of "several experts", so I was failing to see why you chose to lean on that emphasis.

I really don't know what the hell youre talking about Jon,.. but what I actually said and you can read again is that I found I was in agreement with the experts Ive discussed this with, not that I found my opinion once I had those discussions. If that what you alluding to. As I said, Im not sure.

As for the "belief" that 2 or 3 were victims of one man, Its actually a conclusion based on 25 years plus of study and analysis, not something as amorphous as a mere "belief".

Jon, Its actually pretty clear from the first read of any Ripper storybook that there is nothing tangible or logical that can be used to connect at least 2 of the Canonical victims to the rest. Other than the boogyman proposition.

[Harry D]

One pattern was that there were quite a few murder cases that didn't get solved during that period.

Most of the contemporary police who worked on the case may have quibbled over the victim tally but most were in agreement that these murders were the work of a serial killer. Modern consensus has upheld this opinion and it's only a fringe group who believe these murders were completely unrelated, for motives that remain unclear to me. If a group of prostitutes are brutally murdered in the same location, over a short period of time, in similar fashion, common sense would dictate that this was the work of a lone killer. I'm not sure why that's so incredible, but I'd speculate it's because you've painted yourself into a corner with this multi-killer hypothesis and now you're obliged to defend your position against all reason.

At least you added disembowelling to the filter Harry..cause plenty of people had close knife encounters in that neighborhood at that time.

Yes they did, but how many had their carotid arteries severed and their bodies mutilated? From the Whitechapel murder file, this would apply to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly & McKenzie. Stride can be ruled in or out, but I find it much more believable that she was killed by a serial killer who wasn't finished for the night and would strike less than an hour later, than buy into some conspiracy theory where a club mistakes a woman for a spy, murders here, then invents a witness to cover it up.

Again, the crimes within the Unsolved Murder case were there without having a known link by killer for even 2 womens murders, let alone the amount we would need to discuss serial killer cases. Generally they kill more than 2, don't they.

Please rephrase this, Michael, as I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

[Wickerman]

I really don't know what the hell youre talking about Jon,.. but what I actually said and you can read again is that I found I was in agreement with the experts Ive discussed this with, not that I found my opinion once I had those discussions. If that what you alluding to. As I said, Im not sure.

Read my point again, I did not say you adopted an existing opinion. I said you used the fact that "experts" had arrived at the same conclusion to bolster your own opinion.

As for the "belief" that 2 or 3 were victims of one man, Its actually a conclusion based on 25 years plus of study and analysis, not something as amorphous as a mere "belief".

Reading through all the data on each murder wouldn't take 25 hours, never mind 25 years.
And reading the case details is all that is required to arrive at that opinion, you don't need to be an expert (what ever that is).

Jon, Its actually pretty clear from the first read of any Ripper storybook that there is nothing tangible or logical that can be used to connect at least 2 of the Canonical victims to the rest. Other than the boogyman proposition.

This is a problem in modern serial killer cases, the police not being absolutely sure which victims are attributed to the same hand. We are in the same predicament, so some have decided that seven may have been killed by him, others that five is more likely.
No-one can say for sure.
Do you know how many men were credited with some of Robert Picton's crimes?
One of them spent 27 years in jail for crimes he did not commit.

I do remember that pulling the number back to three was not a popular decision in the late 90's, and I think Christopher-Michael DiGrazzia (hope I spelled that right), was the only other person who openly agreed with me.

Like it or not, there is a small degree of doubt whether Kelly should be included, today I am more inclined to include her than not, but the differences, while easily explainable, are still differences.

[c.d.]

If you focus entirely on differences in the murders then of course you will arrive at the conclusion that they were done by different killers. But that will hold true for any set of murders.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Harry,

I realize that many contemporary investigators did voice opinions that they believed 5 or 6 of the murders were likely connected by killer. I also realize that most of them were involved in National Security and matters of espionage before being assigned to Whitechapel to investigate some public butcherings attracting National attention. Did that mean that these men, by their records, were the most adept at solving crimes of unusual violence and murder? Or was it rather their cumulative experiences in Whitechapel managing spies, hunting Anarchists and tracking Terrorists that made them the best choice as investigators for these particular crimes?

I believe that these men were most adept at hunting criminals with plans to topple the government, not mad butchers or serial killers. And I believe they were assigned based on that experience, in that, these crimes were perceived as possible acts of Terrorism by the authorities. The brutal way the victims were killed outdoors and were left splayed open in the street seems to me something intended to terrify.

If you think me too off base then comments made by another contemporary official suggesting a prominent Fenian and Double Agent as the Ripper might convince you more. What possible reason would a senior official and investigator of the Ripper cases have for insinuating that a man who planned bombings and uprisings suddenly slashed womens abdomens in the street? Acts of Terror.

Jon, as you know the study has tangential areas of study that by necessity must be taken to have a full and honest perspective of the place, the people and the times surrounding these crimes. That's why its a never ending area of study..because the tangents get interesting too.

On this serial killer bit.....Its safe to say that the phenomenon of serial killing has only been studied for a few decades, yes? And that, in overwhelming numbers, the cases are about men convicted of serial murder in the United States in the 20th century, fair? Many "serious students", if that pleases you more, have come to a conclusion that the legend that surrounds these crimes and for decades has defined them is not really the reality, that it is far more likely that there were other factors at play here other than a solo serial madman. I believe that the sheer number of victims and variety of styles of attack within the Unsolved Murder file, not associated with Jack, is proof of that.

Cutting throats wasn't terribly unique, hell..some people slit their own throats in that area at that same time and Mr Brown slit his wifes on the night of the "Triple" Event. That being said, anyone can cut a body open if so disposed, why they did it is the key. When you don't know why, simply assuming madness is very superficial and unsatisfying.

None of us know why any of the women were killed, none of us know who killed them. But theres at least one of us that isn't satisfied by the myth nor the premise.

cd, but if you focus on a serial killer then you eliminate other possibilities, some which may explain those "differences" much more adequately.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

If you focus entirely on differences in the murders then of course you will arrive at the conclusion that they were done by different killers. But that will hold true for any set of murders.

c.d.

Correct.
Back in the late 90's there was a wave of interest in treating the Kelly murder as different, we were debating Tumblety and Barnet as the most prominent suspects.
Many accepted that the descriptions of suspects reported in the cases prior to Kelly could not be Tumblety, but there was considerable focus on his potential role in the Kelly murder.
Likewise, Barnet was not an easy choice as a Whitechapel murderer due primarily to the suggested motive behind the theory. However, the question as to whether he could have killed Kelly in isolation received more interest.

A by-product of these theories was to allow for the Kelly murder to be considered on its own.