Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Oh, murder! - by David Orsam 10 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Oh, murder! - by David Orsam 11 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Oh, murder! - by David Orsam 12 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Oh, murder! - by Wickerman 14 minutes ago.
Neil, P.C. John: PC Neil's Route - by Elamarna 17 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Oh, murder! - by Pierre 18 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: Oh, murder! - (41 posts)
Neil, P.C. John: PC Neil's Route - (8 posts)
Non-Fiction: Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017) - (5 posts)
Cutbush, Superintendent Charles Henry: The Curtis Bennett Inquiry - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: shades of Mary Jane Kelly and Joe Barnett - (2 posts)
Anderson, Sir Robert: Anderson Visits The Seaside Home - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Elizabeth Stride

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #221  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:15 AM
John G John G is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Harry D: If the goal was for the killer to have complete control of the victim, he wouldn't have killed them in locations with no guarantee of being undisturbed.

You are putting an unnecessary restraint on yourself, and the result is that you are missing out. Try to realize, Harry, that a confident killersīultimate challenge would be to kill in public without getting caught.

You think it can only be the result of not having a safer place to kill in.

Instead, try and see it as a conscious choice on the killerīs behalf, and new avenues will open up.

Plenty of serial killers have a false sense of superiority. BTK was an arrogant SOB, but he still murdered all of his victims indoors. He didn't take to killing on the streets.

Kürten was an arrogant SOB who did. Try - if you can - to widen your perspective!

We have to look at what the murders tell us about the killer, and in the Ripper's case the murders show little planning or organisation.

No, Harry, they do not tell us either way. There may well have been lots of premeditation, there may have been a choice of venues, of killing method, a plan for the escape etcetera. We just donīt know, and so I cannot let you decide for me.

They were random attacks on women who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They were completely methodical murders, following a plan that was repeated, they were silent murders, they were murders where the killer made his escape, they were murders with no clues left behind. A killer who has a plan for street killing can be just as organized as any other killer. He may well have abandoned a number of opportunitites because they were not to his liking. Once more, we donīt know.
You only think you do.


Whereas the Torso murders have the hallmarks of a more organized serial killer.

It is the same kind of murder, the same kind of damage, the same kind of abdominal wall procurement, the same stealing of rings etcetera. There is one difference only, and that is how the killer used a safe nest. The dismemberment was led on by that - to a degree. To another degree, another matter governed what he did - but he did the same to the Ripper victims.
Thing is, you have not realized what that was.

Disorganized serial killers have been known to evolve into organized ones, and vice-versa, due to various factors, but if the Torso & Ripper were the same man, then he appeared to flick back and forth between the two, which seems unlikely based on what we know.

Both series worked. Why would he not do both? Both allowed for his agenda. Why would he not do both? Once again, look at Kürten - he changed methods and changed back again. Silly him!
Harry is absolutely correct: to argue that murdering a victim in public is the hallmark of an organised killer is just plain silly; as was your previous argument that Kelly's injuries demonstrated a high level of skill!

Regrettably, your obsession in trying to prove that Lechmere was some master criminal for the ages - Whitechapel murderer and Torso killer- is forcing you into more and more ludicrous positions.

Of course you totally ignore the obvious anomalies. Thus, you believe you've uncovered the first serial killer in history who alternated between two ritualistic behaviours; who alternated between being organized and disorganized; who alternated between being a commuter and a marauder; whose psychology kept changing,. I.e. from a killer who clearly enjoyed spending time with his victims-the Whitehall victim's body may well have been stored for 2 months- to a killer who just left women in the street.

No; all you do is focus on two words: abdominal and wall. And I've already explained to you why the three victims that were mutilated in that way was for three very different reasons. Would you like me to explain this to you again just in case you're struggling with the concept?

Last edited by John G : 03-19-2017 at 10:17 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:17 AM
Premium Member
Batman Batman is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Now, what parts of the original investigation do you think I am rejecting? I donīt think Chapman was killed in daylight, but then again, nor did Swanson.

So what is the problem you are having? Which police beats do I deny, which times, which locations?

You need to be a bit more specific in your criticism. As it stands, you are swinging wildly and not explaining what you are aiming for. Once you do, I can assure you that I have a perfectly feasible version of events.
Why are you asking me to be more specific when you have already addressed my points with criticisms? You obviously know what they are to have done that.

You reject that Chapman's neighbour heard a voice say 'No!' and shortly after something hitting the fence. Do you reject it because this is the sort of evidence that we find with disorganized criminals who nearly get caught?

You reject that Stride was accosted by someone who was seen by a witness doing this. Is this because it isn't the behaviour of an organized criminal?

You reject that there is any evidence that police beats on Mitre Sq. would have encountered the ripper if they had stronger flashlights or walked on a few more meters, despite this event having a record of such beats. Is this because it isn't very organized for a killer to murder someone a few meters away from a beat officer on the look out for such things?

Jack the Ripper took risks well beyond what organized offenders do.

Anyway I just don't see how you can omit all these things when the original investigation didn't.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:02 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,058
Default

John G: Harry is absolutely correct: to argue that murdering a victim in public is the hallmark of an organised killer is just plain silly; as was your previous argument that Kelly's injuries demonstrated a high level of skill!

How good, then, that I am not arguing what you claim I am arguing. I am not saying that killing out in the street is typically organized behaviour - I am saying that an organized killer can kill out in the street, for reasons of feeling able to pull it off.

Regrettably, your obsession in trying to prove that Lechmere was some master criminal for the ages - Whitechapel murderer and Torso killer- is forcing you into more and more ludicrous positions.

I wonīt grace that with an answer.

Of course you totally ignore the obvious anomalies. Thus, you believe you've uncovered the first serial killer in history who alternated between two ritualistic behaviours; who alternated between being organized and disorganized; who alternated between being a commuter and a marauder; whose psychology kept changing,. I.e. from a killer who clearly enjoyed spending time with his victims-the Whitehall victim's body may well have been stored for 2 months- to a killer who just left women in the street.

I have uncovered the first poster out here who fails to realize that there is no changing between two ritualistic behaviours - it is the SAME ritualistic behavior in both series. And it has nothing to do with the time spent or where the victims were killed.

No; all you do is focus on two words: abdominal and wall.

Youīd do well to do the same a bit more often. Of course it is an outright lie to say that I focus on nothing else. Your ignorance is another center of attention for me.

And I've already explained to you why the three victims that were mutilated in that way was for three very different reasons. Would you like me to explain this to you again just in case you're struggling with the concept?

Iīd prefer for you to think less of yourself. The idea that there were three different reasons behind that very odd detail says a lot more about your talent for solving crimes than it does about the reality of the case.
Thereīs no reason to comment any more on your efforts. They are at a level a kindergarten kid would be ashamed of. You must forgive me for not wanting to exchange any more with you over this.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:17 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,058
Default

Batman: Why are you asking me to be more specific when you have already addressed my points with criticisms? You obviously know what they are to have done that.

Because I want to know what you are talking about. Please specify.

You reject that Chapman's neighbour heard a voice say 'No!' and shortly after something hitting the fence.

Do I? I canīt remember that, actually. What I reject is that what Cadosch possibly heard was the Chapman murder. And I donīt reject it categorically - but I do favour Phillipsī take on it.

Do you reject it because this is the sort of evidence that we find with disorganized criminals who nearly get caught?

No, I reject it because it is a ridiculous suggestion, given what Phillips said. And I donīt think we can judge organization/disorganization from the word "No".

You reject that Stride was accosted by someone who was seen by a witness doing this. Is this because it isn't the behaviour of an organized criminal?

What? I reject what? That Stride was accosted by BS man? Where on earth did you get that from?
What is this? It is getting more ridiculous by the minute!

You reject that there is any evidence that police beats on Mitre Sq. would have encountered the ripper if they had stronger flashlights or walked on a few more meters, despite this event having a record of such beats.

When did you loose it? I am saying that I am not certain that the killer was around as Harvey stood at the outlet of the passageway. I am not exactly denying that stronger light reveals more - if that is your general idea?

Is this because it isn't very organized for a killer to murder someone a few meters away from a beat officer on the look out for such things?

Batman, it is not whether a person comes upon you that decides if your deed is organized or disorganized. Maybe you need to ponder that?

Jack the Ripper took risks well beyond what organized offenders do.

And Sutcliffe? And Kürten? Were they disorganized killers? Or did they not take risks? Now, try to listen and understand what I am saying:
A disorganized killer is normally not aware that he takes risks. A killer who is aware that he takes risks, is normally not a typically disorganized killer.

Do you see how that works? Itīs basically acknowledging that disorganized killers are cuckoo killers - they are mentally challenged killers. They act under a psychosis many times, and they are totally oblivious of risks, responsibilities and such things.

Anyway I just don't see how you can omit all these things when the original investigation didn't.

There is a lot of things you canīt see, apparently. The original investigation accepted Phillips bid that Chapman was killed before Cadosch went into his back yard. The original investigation allowed for another killer than BS man. The original investigation did not take for granted that Harvey was in Mitre Square together with the killer. The original investigation did, however, predispose that there was a good chance that the killer was mad and probably a foreigner. And if you read up on a phenomenon called criminal anthropology, you may begin to understand what was the underlying cause for that.

Then again, you may not understand a thing. Who knows. And here I was thinking Batman was a clever guy...

Last edited by Fisherman : 03-19-2017 at 11:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:09 PM
Premium Member
Batman Batman is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,488
Default

I probably think this is more of a testimony as to how profiling isn't a science but very subjective.

It doesn't have much baring on a double event anyway as you can claim both are achievable by disorganized/organized.

I am much more interested in how the timing between events, distances and trajectories make it even more of a low probability that they are different killers. That probability is somewhere down near nil.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:25 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,058
Default

Batman: I probably think this is more of a testimony as to how profiling isn't a science but very subjective.

It is based on statistical truths, so in that sense, it has itīs ground in science. The problem that tags along is that not all people will live by the statistical truths.

It doesn't have much baring on a double event anyway as you can claim both are achievable by disorganized/organized.

The whole concept of dividing killers up in an organized and a disorganized group is somewhat outdated, for that exact reason. It has itīs advantages and itīs limitations, just like profiling does.
One issue I am having with the typology is that it lends itself very well to the assumption that the more risks a killer takes, the less organized he will be. That is simply not true. Taking risks is throwing caution to the wind, not necessarily organization, though. As I have been trying to point out, a mentally challenged killer does not kill in the open street because he has decided that the risk is worth taking. To such a killer, it is not a question of rationally weighing the risks, but instead a question of answering to completely different mechanisms than riskjudging. A not mentally challenged killer who kills in the street will be acutely aware of the risks - but wiling to take them. That tells us a lot about the character of such a man, and I for one would say that there is a near certainty that such a killer will be a psychopath.

I am much more interested in how the timing between events, distances and trajectories make it even more of a low probability that they are different killers. That probability is somewhere down near nil.

Iīm sorry, but you just lost me again. Are you talking about the so called double event (in which case I agree, although I do not see the probability of two different killers as being close to nil) or are you speaking of the Ripper murders versus the Torso murders (in which case I also agree, and where I find there is much more forensic reasons to identify the two as one and the same).

Last edited by Fisherman : 03-19-2017 at 11:27 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:25 AM
Premium Member
Batman Batman is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Batman: I probably think this is more of a testimony as to how profiling isn't a science but very subjective.

It is based on statistical truths, so in that sense, it has itīs ground in science. The problem that tags along is that not all people will live by the statistical truths.

It doesn't have much baring on a double event anyway as you can claim both are achievable by disorganized/organized.

The whole concept of dividing killers up in an organized and a disorganized group is somewhat outdated, for that exact reason. It has itīs advantages and itīs limitations, just like profiling does.
One issue I am having with the typology is that it lends itself very well to the assumption that the more risks a killer takes, the less organized he will be. That is simply not true. Taking risks is throwing caution to the wind, not necessarily organization, though. As I have been trying to point out, a mentally challenged killer does not kill in the open street because he has decided that the risk is worth taking. To such a killer, it is not a question of rationally weighing the risks, but instead a question of answering to completely different mechanisms than riskjudging. A not mentally challenged killer who kills in the street will be acutely aware of the risks - but wiling to take them. That tells us a lot about the character of such a man, and I for one would say that there is a near certainty that such a killer will be a psychopath.

I am much more interested in how the timing between events, distances and trajectories make it even more of a low probability that they are different killers. That probability is somewhere down near nil.

Iīm sorry, but you just lost me again. Are you talking about the so called double event (in which case I agree, although I do not see the probability of two different killers as being close to nil) or are you speaking of the Ripper murders versus the Torso murders (in which case I also agree, and where I find there is much more forensic reasons to identify the two as one and the same).
Statistics isn't a science. Its not empirical. Its a tool used by scientists for quantification like any maths.

I have only ever been talking about the double event in this thread titled Lipski.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:39 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,302
Default

Ted Bundy also flip flopped from organized to disorganized. he started out more disorganized, evolved into his organized state-with complicated ruses and then changed back in the end to disorganized.

If he was never caught for the Florida sorority attacks, then they probably would never have connected those to him as it was so totally disorganized and unlike his mature method.

serial killers MO change due to different circumstances and can evolve as they learn how to accomplish what they want more effectively. and can also devolve due to circumstances including the killers mental state and "desperation".

Their sig can evolve also as there fantasy progresses and the violence escalates. and yes I know sig dosnt change as much as MO can.

Their also can be overlap between MO and sig which can confuse things.

Bottom line you have to look at the BIG PICTURE and try to determine if there are enough similarities between what, at first blush, might appear to be differences, to consider if they are related.

IMHO there definitely are between torso man and the ripper to strongly consider they are the same person. and IMHO both were highly sophisticated and organized killers who took great care to accomplish what they wanted-primarily post mortem mutilation and deconstruction of the female body without being apprehended, with a secondary desire to purposely shock the public.


And getting back to the original point of this thread-no disorganized killer could have pulled off the double event, let alone the c-5. Yeah the ripper was lucky-but he knew what he was doing and made his own luck.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:22 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,058
Default

Batman: Statistics isn't a science. Its not empirical. Its a tool used by scientists for quantification like any maths.

Yes, science uses statistics - which is just about what I am trying to say. And profiling is based on quantification to a large degree.

I have only ever been talking about the double event in this thread titled Lipski.

Okidoki - what I say stands: I think that Stride belongs to the Ripper tally, but I would not say that it a certainty by any means.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:25 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Ted Bundy also flip flopped from organized to disorganized. he started out more disorganized, evolved into his organized state-with complicated ruses and then changed back in the end to disorganized.

If he was never caught for the Florida sorority attacks, then they probably would never have connected those to him as it was so totally disorganized and unlike his mature method.

serial killers MO change due to different circumstances and can evolve as they learn how to accomplish what they want more effectively. and can also devolve due to circumstances including the killers mental state and "desperation".

Their sig can evolve also as there fantasy progresses and the violence escalates. and yes I know sig dosnt change as much as MO can.

Their also can be overlap between MO and sig which can confuse things.

Bottom line you have to look at the BIG PICTURE and try to determine if there are enough similarities between what, at first blush, might appear to be differences, to consider if they are related.

IMHO there definitely are between torso man and the ripper to strongly consider they are the same person. and IMHO both were highly sophisticated and organized killers who took great care to accomplish what they wanted-primarily post mortem mutilation and deconstruction of the female body without being apprehended, with a secondary desire to purposely shock the public.


And getting back to the original point of this thread-no disorganized killer could have pulled off the double event, let alone the c-5. Yeah the ripper was lucky-but he knew what he was doing and made his own luck.
I may as well give up posting here, Abby That was a very good condensation of what applies!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.