So who was Jack the Ripper.

[DVV]

Hi Joel. This brings to mind the Hillside Stranglers, Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono (who kidnapped, raped, tortured, and killed females from twelve to twenty-eight years old, in the hills above Los Angeles during over four-months from 1977 to 1978). A pair - working together or separately - might explain the differences in the C5 murders. Again this brings to light a problem though. There has to be something very strong keeping them together - because as the Hillside strangler case demonstrates - as when police heat is intensifying, there can be strong motivation for one to dob the other in for all the murders. Having said that, you raise an issue that is well worth exploring!

Sasha

Hello Sasha,
a duet is one thing, but a group of 4 or 5 killers being on the same spot, one killing, the other one watching out, etc, is a completely different matter!
That's what makes Joel's theory quite unique, and that's why we are waiting for additional speculations from Joel about the supposed group of killers he has conjectured.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

I would rule out suffocation in the Whitechapel victims. It would have taken a bit of time, the women would almost certainly have squealed (unless he had a pillow or similar to smother the noises) and it would have increased his chances of being caught. A swift but effective cut across the throat renders the victim silent almost instantly, allowing the killer to get on with the mutilations he so desperartely wanted to perform. Also, with this method, if he looks like being disturbed in the course of mutilating a woman, he can get up and run away, without fear of his victim recovering enough to identify or describe him. A partly smothered woman might do so.

Hi Limehouse,
seems difficult to "rule out" suffocation in some of the Whitechapel Murders.
Just try with Chapman! (She bore signs of suffocation...yet she managed to cry: "No!" if Cadosh is to be believed...)
Of course, I agree that strangulation/ suffocation does not seem the cause of the death. But don't forget that the victims were put to the ground prior to have their throat cut.
So they were killed instantly, as you said, but only once they were put to the ground.
Amitiés,
DVV

[Limehouse]

Peter Kurten, the Dusseldorf killer, used a variety of methods to kill his victims and he also killed men, women and children.

I would rule out suffocation in the Whitechapel victims. It would have taken a bit of time, the women would almost certainly have squealed (unless he had a pillow or similar to smother the noises) and it would have increased his chances of being caught. A swift but effective cut across the throat renders the victim silent almost instantly, allowing the killer to get on with the mutilations he so desperartely wanted to perform. Also, with this method, if he looks like being disturbed in the course of mutilating a woman, he can get up and run away, without fear of his victim recovering enough to identify or describe him. A partly smothered woman might do so.

[Sasha]

these are all possibilities yes. however they are not definite signs, nor does it suggest it must be the same killer. swelling of the face a definite of strangulation. really though these similarities are minor compared to the differences. especially if the killers knew each other, it would make sense that there would be a common characteristic running through the killings. especially something that makes sure of death, and was a common method of murder.


joel

Hi Joel. This brings to mind the Hillside Stranglers, Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono (who kidnapped, raped, tortured, and killed females from twelve to twenty-eight years old, in the hills above Los Angeles during over four-months from 1977 to 1978). A pair - working together or separately - might explain the differences in the C5 murders. Again this brings to light a problem though. There has to be something very strong keeping them together - because as the Hillside strangler case demonstrates - as when police heat is intensifying, there can be strong motivation for one to dob the other in for all the murders. Having said that, you raise an issue that is well worth exploring!

Sasha

[DVV]

Santé Joel,
just think about Vacher's murders. Much more dissimilarities than in our case, but that one killer for sure.
And I insist, though I will appear so "classic", that similarities abond, and that the "scale" theory, if questionable, still is far more reasonnable to me that the group you are suggesting.
One of your post above showed these "several killers" on the same spot - one killing, the other being on the watch or faciliting the escape (in which way?) - behaving separately, as if they did not knew each other, if I understood well.
Do you imagine the training that this supposed? I know you're just thinking your matter, but can you tell more about these killers? Their skills, backgroungs, motives?
Amitiés,
D

[joelhall]

Joel,
is it necessary to quote now the various indications of "suffocation" or "half strangulation"?
It's very hot tonight, I'm fighting with a canadian whisky and I have no ice.
For Chapman, the sources are well known, signs of suffocation having been discussed during the inquest itself.
Nichols had a laceration of the tongue (see Spratling's report, 31 aug), her face was said to be discoloured...
In Eddowes' case, discolouration of the hands have been suggested as a possible sign of suffocation, which, in turn, would help to explain why the neighbours did not hear anything of the murder.
The extensive wounds on MK do not allow any discussion here.
As for Tabram, this has been suggested by the Illustrated Police News, and her face seems quite swollen in the mortuary photograph.
Really Joel, one of your murderers have to have killed more than once!
Amitiés,
David

these are all possibilities yes. however they are not definite signs, nor does it suggest it must be the same killer. swelling of the face a definite of strangulation. really though these similarities are minor compared to the differences. especially if the killers knew each other, it would make sense that there would be a common characteristic running through the killings. especially something that makes sure of death, and was a common method of murder.

p.s. ive got cold ale myself, no need for ice

bottoms up

joel

[DVV]

Joel,
is it necessary to quote now the various indications of "suffocation" or "half strangulation"?
It's very hot tonight, I'm fighting with a canadian whisky and I have no ice.
For Chapman, the sources are well known, signs of suffocation having been discussed during the inquest itself.
Nichols had a laceration of the tongue (see Spratling's report, 31 aug), her face was said to be discoloured...
In Eddowes' case, discolouration of the hands have been suggested as a possible sign of suffocation, which, in turn, would help to explain why the neighbours did not hear anything of the murder.
The extensive wounds on MK do not allow any discussion here.
As for Tabram, this has been suggested by the Illustrated Police News, and her face seems quite swollen in the mortuary photograph.
Really Joel, one of your murderers have to have killed more than once!
Amitiés,
David

[joelhall]

Joel,
As far as I understand your theory, and for the sake of testing it, I would point out that using the post-mortem to ascertain the idea of several killers may be a double-edged argument here.
The post-mortem have much in common: troat cut to the vertebrae (C1, C2, C4, C5), from left to right (all), signs of strangulation (C1, C2, C4, no relevance in MK's case - and I should add Tabram, who also bored signs of suffocation or "half strangulation"), abdominal injuries (all except C3), etc.
If you add to these some aspects of the circomstances (victims quickly dispached, silence, etc), then you have to imagine not only different killers who know each other, but who also use the same MO to a large extent, who suffer the same kind of obsession or mental illness (or no obsession nor mental illness at all!), not to mention the fact that they all had to agree to stop killing, at least in the "Whitechapel manner", at the same time!
Hope it will help, and I believe more and more that if you can solve these problems, you'd have really good material for a novel (not necessarily backgrouned by Whitechapel, Victorian times or JtR!).
Amitiés,
DVV

i dont have to imagine that at all.

a cut to the throat is hardly compelling evidence of a serial killer, this in fact being the only thing linking them. the mutilations differed. also i dont see that all the victims were strangled (though it would be helpful if you could show me the relevent sources ), though in any case this is again not proof of a serial killer. nor, looking at the inquest testimony, were the cuts to the throats all the same. we have a jagged cut, a cut to the vertebrae, a cut 'to the extent of 6" or 7"', two cuts... these are not identical so this is not proof they were the same hand. (however, ive not been able to find the post-mortem reports you mention, only the inquest reports could you point me in the right direction?)

as regards agreements - all they would have agreed to is a killing in the first place, not to stop. having done one murder, each persons part was done. i do not believe there was any conspiracy to go on killing people (nor do i believe that being a prostitute was part of the killers motive).


cheers

joel

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
I am so glad I started this thread under the heading'So Who was Jack the Ripper', for it has developed into very intresting conversation.
It opens up a chance to form ones opinions on what the individual has deducted from the mass of information on 'Casebook', and therefore armed with the facts ,those who dare can enter the world of personal speculation,and one never knows spark off some new paths to follow, which can only be beneficial.
Best Regards,
Richard.

[DVV]

Joel,
As far as I understand your theory, and for the sake of testing it, I would point out that using the post-mortem to ascertain the idea of several killers may be a double-edged argument here.
The post-mortem have much in common: troat cut to the vertebrae (C1, C2, C4, C5), from left to right (all), signs of strangulation (C1, C2, C4, no relevance in MK's case - and I should add Tabram, who also bored signs of suffocation or "half strangulation"), abdominal injuries (all except C3), etc.
If you add to these some aspects of the circomstances (victims quickly dispached, silence, etc), then you have to imagine not only different killers who know each other, but who also use the same MO to a large extent, who suffer the same kind of obsession or mental illness (or no obsession nor mental illness at all!), not to mention the fact that they all had to agree to stop killing, at least in the "Whitechapel manner", at the same time!
Hope it will help, and I believe more and more that if you can solve these problems, you'd have really good material for a novel (not necessarily backgrouned by Whitechapel, Victorian times or JtR!).
Amitiés,
DVV

[joelhall]

apologies, i did not fully answer your questions....

the immediate consequences from these deductions, are...

the killer of each victim would have others to keep them safe/hide out.

none of those who knew would rat the others out as their hands were also bloodied.

escape would be easier and assisted.

intimidation could be used on witnesses to retract, change or forget their statements.

there would of course be ample opportunity for confedarates to give misleading statements to police and other inquirers (i have my suspicions here, though nothing with stands up, merely surmise).

there would be a safe house - somewhere for a killer to clean-up, change clothes, etc, without worrying about raising suspicion.

it would explain why the killings were so close together, and such seemingly high 'risks' were taken.

it also explains something illogical if we look at a fixated serial killer, or sexual killer - that no two women had identical murders. organs missing, if not always difference were taken in different ways. (for instance the difference in a missing uterus with cervix and part of vagina as opposed to the uterus alone). generally speaking (though not exclusively i admit) a serial killer of this type would show certain hallmarks. a cut on the throat is not one of these, given how common a trait of murder this was at the time.

i should point out that this is all based on evidence i have studied so far. these are the points i feel more than 50% sure of at the moment, anything else would be total speculation rather than reasoned deduction.

but please feel free to question more. its very helpful

joel

[joelhall]

O'right Joel,
so what about your theory that the killers knew each other?
This can't be a postulate, but a result of the way you observes the facts.
So where does this idea come from, what are the consequences of it on the scenario?
Amitiés,
David

purely from similarities of the murders themselves, the fact that they seem to share a similar cause of death, that they were in such a close locale of each other, that there were varying discriptions, that noone was specificaly targeted or noticed, that the victims all shared certain characteristics... seems more logical and probable than several unconnected people all around the same time deciding to go out around the same short space of time to commit more horrific than usual, seemingly motiveless murders. two, would be coincidence, 4/5 is pushing it somewhat. especially given the fear and publicity and public outcry... seems for a series of copycats, far too risky. also that the majority of people do not commit highly gross public murders including mutilation without a very good reason. unless these women had really ticked off lots of people

these of course are the main reasons for assuming it was all the same person, though there appear to be too many differences to suggest a lone killer did them all. particularly a serial killer. profiling and experience of serial killing, not being what they are now, the logical conclusion at the time would be that something so ghastly must be a lone killer, who was disturbed.

personally i see flaws in that reasoning.

[DVV]

O'right Joel,
so what about your theory that the killers knew each other?
This can't be a postulate, but a result of the way you observes the facts.
So where does this idea come from, what are the consequences of it on the scenario?
Amitiés,
David

[joelhall]

Thanks for your frank and detailed reply Joel.
I have much to object, but that would be unecessary and unfair - all these objections being scattered here on various discussions, as we are both well aware.
I will just point out your idea about the killers knowing each other. Let alone the matter of study, and with all due respect for your research, it seems to me a good starting point for a novel.
Merci encore,
Amitiés
David

feel free to pick holes in it thats the only way to test a theory. pm me if youd like to avoid repetition on the boards as i say its only a working theory at present, but ill be happy for yours or anyone elses views and arguements.

...though i dont really about a novel, creative writing isnt exactly my forte, and i dont really have the inclination to make money off it. the puzzle and trying to create order in things is really the extent of my interest.

cheers

joel

[DVV]

Being too much charming would even make him appear more suspicious.
Had he the appearance of a sailor, as stated by Lawende, he had to be accordingly "rough" in his manners, somehow.
I was just re-reading some pages of the first Fu Manchu, where Nyland Smith dresses himself up as a sailor, rough-speaking, with dirty hands and so on, to enter an opium end in the East End!

Amitiés
David