Assignation of Victims to a single killer

[DVV]

Hi David,

Nice to see you contributing. On your above response to "cozying up" as a preferential method of approaching a victim, by Israels story the man grabbed her in the street and pulled her off balance to the ground. Not much finesse there, and since there is no hard evidence that Pipeman and BSM were on the same team, he committed the assault in front of a witness.

Far simpler to believe that what was not seen or heard by anyone we know was in that area at that time were accurate representations of the situation, compared with taking the word of someone who we do not know was even there, about something only he alleges happens, with people only he sees or hears.

Israel Schwartz is just an opportunity for a socialist Jew to direct attention from the local Jews for Strides death, and for the unsolved deaths to that point. Which by the remarks made, even the authorities thought them guilty of.

Cheers

Hi Michael, nice to see you back too

the crime was already attributed to the Ripper, Schwartz or not, and despite all that has been recently said about Schwartz and the club, I'm not ready to discard his testimony.

I agree we hardly imagine JtR assaulting his victim like BSM did, but what we imagine in 2012 hardly makes Schwartz a liar.

By the way, if one doesn't believe Stride to be a Ripper victim, what's the problem with BSM m.o. ?

Now, if BSM and Sailor Man are one and the same person, I just can observe that the killer knew that some people had a glimpse of him with his victims minutes before the murders - and did not care.

It's also possible, although not very likely, that BSM did exist but was not Stride's murderer.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

Just a few points...Hunter, I believe you misunderstood my point earlier about suspecting Jews....its clear that in September of 88 the police believed that the killer they sought was a local Jew. The synopsis of the investigations that took place when Anderson was in Paris, Switzerland....confirmed the police believed the man to be Jewish. Despite Pizer's appearance....which does nothing to dismiss a Jew or a "Leather Apron", who, it seems probable, Pizer was not.

What I suggested makes perfect sense if one can connect Schwartz to the club...and I believe someone has recently discovered a possible connection between Schwartz and Wess. And despite any support given to the statement Swanson recounts in his memo, or by Abberline, there is no evidence that Israel Schwartz or his story had any appreciable impact on the investigations beyond the first few days. Just like Hutchinson, who also received support early on. We know why Hutchinson wasnt at the Inquest, so tell me why Israel wasnt if he was so important? If you can find one source that shows Israel was a part of the proceedings, or that he was used as a witness, or that his story shaped the investigation irrevocably from the point it was given to the police...Id sure be happy to see them.

Jon, its quite common for people to group kills under one killer when it comes to Whitechapel in the LVP, but the file that contained 11 names was for Unsolved murders, not for "connected" unsolved murders, the period that even the contemporary authorities believed one man was responsible for some of those murders was from Aug 31 until November 9th, 1888. Whats the point of having a Canonical Group if other murders are assumed included in the same killers streak?

And within those 2 1/2 months, within the 5 murders, there are discrepancies in the Victimology, Methodology, Skill and Knowledge and how and what wounds were inflicted.

If one takes the approach that the Unsolved File seems to have done, to group all the murders by the virtue of their status as crimes, not simply a few under the heading of a single assumed killer, then the differences are much clearer.

There never was a Jack the Ripper file...maybe that shows the level of confidence in a Canonical Group as a premise.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

That really bites.

Hello Rivkah. Thanks. She obviously bit her tongue.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Jon. Thanks. Chapman's tongue was protruding.

"Could the lacerated tongue have come from the bruises on her face . . ."

Doubtful. Bruises seldom cause lacerations.

Cheers.
LC

I thought that was an ill-phrased way of asking if she bit her tongue during whatever concussive, or squeeze injury it was that resulted in the bruises. Were the lacerations from biting her tongue, or did her tongue get nicked with the knife?

I think assumptions about the killer knowing where the uterus, or any other part of the body organs might be, is a step beyond where I would tread.

I've always been on the "grab something squishy, and cut it free" school, which is why I thought any anatomical knowledge was nonsense, other than what someone might have from reading a layman's anatomy book, or what a slaughterer might know.

I pointed out in another thread that of all women, a middle-aged woman is the most likely among non-pregnant women to have a prominent uterus, but that might just mean that it was more likely to be the organ he grabbed in a grab-n-go.

The uterus was targetted... for whatever reason.

I'm going to need more evidence than that. We don't know too many things. We don't know for absolute certain that he knew the organ he excised was the uterus. Even if it was the thing he was going for, he may not have known its function, may just have liked its appearance for some reason, so that makes me want to reserve judgment on something like "the uterus was targeted." It implies he knew its function, which is charged with all kinds of sexuality and symbolism.

But, on top of that, the sample is too small.

I drank two cups of coffee today. Someone observing that might think I like coffee. The fact is, that I don't, really. Most days, I don't drink any at all, but I didn't sleep well last night (probably a Yom Kippur thing), felt a headache coming on, and happened to be out of tea. You really would have to observe me on more than one day to realize that I drink tea more than coffee, but don't drink either on a daily basis.

We know too little of the career of JTR. We don't know for certain all the bodies are his, nor what other bodies might be part of his, pardon the expression, corpus. Sometimes with modern criminals, they leave DNA, fingerprints, carpet fibers, bullets that are from the same gun, or some other thing that makes us confident we are dealing with one person, and on top of that, we have better communication among jurisdictions, so we have better information about all the crimes a single person may have committed. We don't have that kind of certainty here.

This does not imply that this killer necessarily came about his knowledge by trade or profession. ... Ed Gein studied medical books ... and he was just a farmer with minimal formal education.

Ed Gein was recent enough that we can be sure he had several years of public school.

What kinds of assumptions can we make about JTR's schooling? if he was born 25-45 years before 1888, what kind of public school was available? What percentage of the poorest people in London (excluding immigrants) had basic literacy? I mean, I think that JTR could read, even if he didn't send any of the letters, but I still wonder how well he could read.

[lynn cates]

Stick out your tongue and say, "Ah."

Hello Jon. Thanks. Chapman's tongue was protruding.

"Could the lacerated tongue have come from the bruises on her face . . ."

Doubtful. Bruises seldom cause lacerations.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Thanks for that, Lynn

Her tongue was lacerated. (Evans and Skinner, p. 35.)

But, Chapman`s tongue wasn`t lacerated, was it?

Does Llewellyn mention possible strangulation in his reports?

Could the lacerated tongue have come from the bruises on her face indicating the killer held her mouth and chin with one hand whilst he cut her throat with the other?

[Phil H]

It is not an assumption that the killer knew where the uterus was; it is a fact.

I'm sorry to say this to a poster that I usually respect highly Hunter, but in this case you appear to have a difficulty in determining the difference between an assumption and a fact.

You are making assumptions based on apparent facts - they are assumptions because they involve INTENT about which we are ignorant.

I can understand how you extrapolate from one to the other, but I remain unconvinced by your hypothesis.

Phil H

[lynn cates]

I must hand it to you.

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"When you write "single hand theorists" - do you mean people who believe all eleven murders in the file were committed by one person?"

No, just the 5.

"To be honest, I`d be sursprised if there are any "single hand theorists". Do you know of any?"

Well, some who attribute MOST of them to a single hand. You see, they have read that FBI rot (first written, if I recall properly, for some television programme) and they eschew a killer who began with Polly. (Even better if his dad were absent, his mum dominated him, he wee weed the bed, and he were cruel to small animals.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Bite your tongue.

Hello Jon. Thanks. Not a problem.

Her tongue was lacerated. (Evans and Skinner, p. 35.)

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

I notice that you couched this in terms of your beliefs. That is good. I wish the single hand theorists would say something like:

When you write "single hand theorists" - do you mean people who believe all eleven murders in the file were committed by one person? To be honest, I`d be sursprised if there are any "single hand theorists". Do you know of any?

[Hunter]

here's a question Hunter

Did the victims know there killer? Was he perhaps a client of the women?

love to know what people think
Sherlock Holmes

I don't know if any of the victims knew their killer before they met him on the night of their deaths, but given their apparent circumstances at the time, it would not have been necessary for them to.

[Hunter]

I think assumptions about the killer knowing where the uterus, or any other part of the body organs might be, is a step beyond where I would tread. Slit open the abdomen and it is there. On the other hand, given the plundering of Kate's kidney, I'll accept that the man might have had some oblique/rudimentary knowledge of anatomy - maybe he had assisted a barber-surgeon; worked in an abbatoir... was a cats meat salesman ... knew how to handle a knife.

It is not an assumption that the killer knew where the uterus was; it is a fact. The murderer did not just cut open the abdomen 'and it was there.' The uterus was targetted... for whatever reason. In Annie Chapman it was cored out; in Catherine Eddowes the skin of the groin was peeled back and the uterus (which is under the bladder) was removed without damage to the bladder; in Mary Kelly the uterus was removed and placed under the woman's head. This is significant medical evidence and is unique.

This does not imply that this killer necessarily came about his knowledge by trade or profession. As I wrote in my NIR article, someone with a deviant fantasy would seek the necessary knowledge in order to act upon it. Ed Gein studied medical books and anatomical charts in order to help him carry out his gruesome work with dead bodies, and he was just a farmer with minimal formal education.

I do not believe the medical evidence in these murders can ever reveal a suspect, but it is a clue to a pattern that may well have been the responsibility of one individual in some of these crimes.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Forgive me for being dense, but what were the obvious signs of strangulation with Nichols?

[lynn cates]

credo in unum . . .

Hello Sherlock. Yes, a few thoughts. First, to what MO do you refer? A cut throat perhaps? Are you suggesting that a cut throat indicates a single hand?

I notice that you couched this in terms of your beliefs. That is good. I wish the single hand theorists would say something like:

"I believe in one killer,
Jack the Ripper,
maker of all knife murders in Whitechapel,
and all strangulations,
visible (Polly and Annie) and invisible (Liz, Kate and MJK)."

I would never have a problem with that. After all, beliefs are personal.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Michael

Yes, I don`t assume the Ripper has to mutilate, and yes, of the eleven murders in the Whitechapel murders file I think there are a number of them that were by the same hand. I suppose in modern parlance that if three of the victims were by the same hand then yes, there was a serial killer on the loose. Although, the term serial killer didn`t exist in 1888, and it was certainly not attached to the Ripper when I first read about the crimes.

Although, we are apparently a community, this community is made up of individuals, all with our own conclusions on the number of victims attributed to one killer, whether it be 2, 4 or 11, and the number of murderers that were running around.

So, you dont ASSUME that a Ripper must Rip... but you do assume that 5 murders within 2 1/2 months must be linked to one killer?
- Michael


Two and a half months ? The murders in the file started in 1888 and finished in 1891!!