Assignation of Victims to a single killer

[Errata]

Hi all,

There is one thing that Im pleased to see on this thread,..its the acceptance in the discussions of either a deteriorating individual as is represented by the Canonical Group, or, we have people of varied skill sets. Its also on the table that 2 men or more could have been involved in some of the murders....its not inconceivable and would explain neat surgical extractions with Kate Eddowes juxtaposed with an amateur upward slash to initiate the excision process on the same victim.

Its not required in any of them as far as I can see, but as in a Burke and Hare type partnership....2 men can watch each others backs. In Millers Court that may have been the reason Mary is decimated...if the man watching the court was actually Hutchinson, or if it wasnt Hutchinson, either way ....we have someone who was watching the entrance to the crime scene for around 40 minutes. A loud whistle away from the room itself. Thats about 5 or 6 times as long as Kate's killer had with her...presuming Lawende did see Kate.

Cheers all

I've always thought that a partnership would explain a lot of little mysteries about the case. But being a strong supporter of the notion that there is nothing new in the world, I always look for precedent or antecedent. And serial killers do team up. But to the best of my knowledge, severe mutilators don't. I think it's probably a lot easier to find another guy who wants to torture or rape women than find another guy who wants to get the killing out of the way so you can get straight to plundering her innards. A partnership in these kinds of killings would by necessity alter the motives to something unrecognizable and implausible. Unless it was siblings. In theory a set of brothers growing up in the same horrendous circumstances and both with the same genetic predispositions could have almost identical motives and a close enough bond that the presence of the other would not violate a sense of privacy.

But the easiest way of getting a woman flat on her back so you can cut her throat without her screaming or fighting is with two men. One to distract, one to initiate the attack. One could choke her while the other holds her still.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

There is one thing that Im pleased to see on this thread,..its the acceptance in the discussions of either a deteriorating individual as is represented by the Canonical Group, or, we have people of varied skill sets. Its also on the table that 2 men or more could have been involved in some of the murders....its not inconceivable and would explain neat surgical extractions with Kate Eddowes juxtaposed with an amateur upward slash to initiate the excision process on the same victim.

Its not required in any of them as far as I can see, but as in a Burke and Hare type partnership....2 men can watch each others backs. In Millers Court that may have been the reason Mary is decimated...if the man watching the court was actually Hutchinson, or if it wasnt Hutchinson, either way ....we have someone who was watching the entrance to the crime scene for around 40 minutes. A loud whistle away from the room itself. Thats about 5 or 6 times as long as Kate's killer had with her...presuming Lawende did see Kate.

Cheers all

[GregBaron]

Blowing about a 1.5

Thank you, Greg, for reading my article in the NIR

You're welcome Hunter, it was well worth it...

Hi everybody in the drunk discussion,

I didn't mean to imply the perp was knee-walking drunk, we all know there are varying degrees of intoxication, my suggestion is that he got a buzz and perhaps was a bit more buzzed at some times than others but no so buzzed that he had totally lost normal consciousness.....I'm loathe to admit that even I myself have been in said condition a few times..........

I know we bring up Bundy too often, but for good or bad, he seems to be the poster boy from whom we attempt to backtrack. He smoked marijuana sometimes while hunting and often had several beers, he even mentioned it as a de-inhibitor in an interview........I think it likely he was rather more tipsy than usual when he went into a full sorority house at 2 or 3 in the morning and began smashing the poor innocents that lay sleeping....this is a bold, reckless and insane move that was contrary to many of the methodical successes in his past.....

Perhaps an analogy could be made here with the madness in Miller's Court? Anyway, I can see the apparent recklessness of Eddowes as perhaps like preparing a Holiday feast after drinking 3 glasses of wine.......you might get everything to the table but it may not be timely and looking very pretty and you may drop the cranberries.......One could be tipsy and still know that it was time to skedaddle when a coppers footsteps were approaching...

Bundy got very lucky many times being slightly inebriated and audaciously bold. Perhaps the killer or killers had this same luck....



Greg

[Hunter]

Thank you, Greg, for reading my article in the NIR, and understanding what the debate was really about in the wake of Sept. 30... and why Sequeira and Saunders said what they did in regards to the 'skill' of Kate Eddowes murderer. Wish more people understood what was going on and how it all actually related to Baxter's Burke and Hare theory more that it did to anything else. I've been doing more research lately and less posting.

It is the context and how it all related to what Baxter had stirred up just a few days before that is the key to what all of these subsequent medicos said and why they said it.

If you look at Swanson's Nov. 6 report, you will see that the opinion about Chapman's murderer by that time was not agreeing with Baxter either. They were all learning this on the fly and new evidence revealed new revelations as to what they might be dealing with.

We are all too guilty of trying to make our own suspects fit, or simply not going back and reliving these events as they unfolded to gain a proper perspective of what they were experiencing at the time.

[Errata]

I think the lack of hand eye coordination lets out drunkenness, but really it's the failure in judgement that would make me suspicious of a drunk theory. I mean, when people drink, they lose inhibitions yes, but they also lose common sense and social and personal boundaries. A drunk could kill, but the idea that they could successfully evade capture much less notice is kind of pushing it. We get a lot of people who kill on purpose when drunk here. They don't clean up, they don't make any kind of normal decision when it comes to escaping or hiding the evidence of their crime. Here of course there is a real tendency to show up at another bar still covered in blood and not getting what the problem is. And it seems to be totally different for drunk people who kill on accident, because the shock evidently sobers them up quite a bit. I think I would need a bunch of examples of people drunk enough to affect their coordination, but not enough to tank their judgement to believe in that.

As for two different people taking a uterus, I still think it's exceedingly unlikely. I could totally see someone trying to take a uterus and failing, but succeeding at that is really hard. It is not visible through an abdominal opening. It is below the pubic arch, out of sight, under the intestines, behind the bladder, is about the size and appearance of an uninflated balloon, and looks nothing like the pictures in the anatomy books. It also doesn't look anything like the uterus of cows, sheep, horses, dogs, cats, etc and is in a different place. If you went to look it up in a book, and then looked at a cadaver, 90% of people still couldn't find it. Essentially, you need a road map. Now Annie Chapman was found in a position that I think makes it likely that he found her uterus the way a gynecologist does. Which does not need medical knowledge, just some basic knowledge and some common sense. But Eddowes was not in that position, and her killer had less time than with Chapman. If it was a different man who took her uterus, this different man could only have found it through previous experience. And if he hadn't killed a woman and taken her uterus before, then he got that experience through the practice of medicine. Which is at odds with the crappiness of his knife work.

I will say the knacker theory works well for the kidney, since kidneys look like kidneys. But if you ever get a chance, take a look at a woman opened up for autopsy or whatever and take in the lay of the land. Because it's kind of daunting.

[Michael W Richards]

Forgive me for taking your quote out of context Errata but I think too little attention is given to this possibility. If you believe in a serialist we know that many get liquored up to diminish their inhibitions. Perhaps he had simply been over-served when he attacked Eddowes. Also, if we look at the time of day, perhaps he had sobered up, ran out of money or there were fewer places open for business on the hours at which Nichols and Chapman met their demise...

Continuing with this theme, he might have been fairly drunk with Stride, which would fit Broad Shoulders, and supremely smashed during the overkill orgy of MJK...........

Just a thought, pure speculation of course....


Greg

Hi Greg, all,

There are of course so real obstacles to a drunken killer in some of the Canonical cases, and some might fit that type of profile. One real objection with some kills is the lack of sloppiness in his hand/eye co-ordination, and crime scene evidence. I dont recall a single report that stated bloody footprints were found leaving the scene, yet it would seem almost impossible the the soles of his boots wouldnt contact the blood on the ground especially in the dark. The killer(s) kept the victims from loudly screaming bloody murder..(yes..Mary did scream, but not at the top of her lungs)...something not easy considering that in 4 of 5 cases the victim was already lying on the ground when they get their throats cut. The killer(s) slipped out of some precarious situations, in Berner Street, Mitre Square and Millers Court, and we have no evidence that anyone was seen running from any scene.

I would think that Pollys killer needed his wits about him due to the venue and the fact its likely a first kill for him, Annies killer also needed a steady hand and his wits about him...he had to leave the scene by entering the lodging house hallway, and Kates killer seemed to be able to "operate" in a very quick manner....suggesting either sobriety or at least functionality.

Now....Liz Strides killer neednt have skill, or knowledge or a sober hand, all he needed was a a knife and 2 hands...one to grab her scarf first and twist it, one to cut. Marys killer could have been drunk..the facial slashes, the bizarre placement of organs under her head and between her legs, and the partially denuded thighs all suggest someone who did not have complete control of himself.

The partially denuded thighs is to me most revealing about her wounds...acts were initiated and seemingly left incomplete, yet we have no evidence that suggests he stopped and left suddenly. It appears he could have had the time to completely strip the legs...or to complete the partial severance of her right arm....left attached only by sinew..or to decapitate her...she had the spinal marks to suggest an attempt of that.

Not thinking clearly....could be booze.

[lynn cates]

possible

Hello Joe. Thanks. Yes, many possibilities.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Forgive me for taking your quote out of context Errata but I think too little attention is given to this possibility.

On the possibility the JTR was more or less drunk during some of the murders.

Wow. That's...wow. Yeah; I would agree that way too little attention is given to this. I understand the idea of limiting speculation to the provable, or at least potentially provable, but yeah, that's really good.

Also, does anyone know what sort of adjectives have been used to describe the skill of other serial killers in dismembering, or excising parts of victims?

Jeffrey Dahmer knew how to do a lot of what he did, because he used to dissect animals when he was a kid. Apparently, lots, and lots of animals. Ed Gein knew how to gut, skin, and taxidermy people, because he had done this to animal carcasses he had hunted. And, apparently enough people liked to hand deer head trophies, that no one thought much about him purchasing the things he needed to make whatever footstools, or lampshades, or whatever, he was making.

Herb Baumeister, on the other hand, was the son of a doctor, and studied some of his father's anatomy texts from medical school.

What kind of public library, if any, existed in 1888?

[sleekviper]

Morning Lynn!
Well a multiple needs to explain a difference, so making note that murder is his "game", and laughing at the thought of being called a doctor, does make a bridge between being skilled one murder, and guessing what is going to be cut the next. So rather than say, "We seem to have the killer of(pick a non C-5 murder) prowling about!", it becomes, "He is not as skilled afterall!" So a game could be played, or someone is bridging crimes to reflect one killer. Either way, still hard to place "Dear Boss" in the fake bin. After that arrives, all bets are off as to what he will do with his "Game".

[GregBaron]

Inhibitions lifted...

the only explanation is that the killer got exceptionally drunk for some murders

Forgive me for taking your quote out of context Errata but I think too little attention is given to this possibility. If you believe in a serialist we know that many get liquored up to diminish their inhibitions. Perhaps he had simply been over-served when he attacked Eddowes. Also, if we look at the time of day, perhaps he had sobered up, ran out of money or there were fewer places open for business on the hours at which Nichols and Chapman met their demise...

Continuing with this theme, he might have been fairly drunk with Stride, which would fit Broad Shoulders, and supremely smashed during the overkill orgy of MJK...........

Just a thought, pure speculation of course....


Greg

[lynn cates]

remarks

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"Two separate people taking a uterus in a short amount of time sort of beggars the imagination."

Not mine. But of course that depends on the second having read of the first.

"Three victims have shorter secondary throat cuts of varying depths. That's unusual, unnecessary, and probably unique."

Well, certainly two. Kate is still highly debatable. And, to be fair, both Cris and I have been on BOTH sides of the discussion.

A possible explanation of the additions to Annie's mutilations may be this. Both Polly and Annie died with yards of a Harrison/Barber horse slaughter yard. If it were done by the same chap and he were watching the horse killings, perhaps he was emulating just how far the proceedings went on that exact day?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

"Which given the sequence is just kind of odd."

What sequence? Polly and Annie? Not odd at all. C1-C5? Remarkably odd--in fact, bizarre.

Care to draw any possible conclusion?

Cheers.
LC

The order that would make the most sense in term of an evolution of skill would be Tabram, Nichols, Eddowes, Chapman, Kelly, and then someone after Mary Kelly displaying the same level of ferocity but with a return of precision. And I say that because Tabram shows frenzy, but Nichols is the more controlled version of Tabram. Chapman is the more controlled version of Eddowes. It would make sense that the first time escalating would be sloppy, and then after that first time, a return of control.

Clearly that didn't happen.

I can easily explain any devolving skill through mental state, increased pressure, even shaking from the cold. Which doesn't mean that any of those reasons are true, just that I can make that make sense to me. Nichols to Chapman is a massive uptick in control, precision, confidence, etc. It's akin to teaching a kid chopsticks, and then a month later he is playing Bach concertos. I suppose a killing prodigy could exist, but I've never heard of it.

I can only explain it one of two ways. Firstly, that he had the skill when he killed Nichols, but for some reason chose not to display it. And that he had ability and the desire to open the abdomen, and for some reason he chose not to. Secondly, That there are a ton of bodies somewhere else we've never heard of. Neither rings especially true, the first because killers tend to be pretty impulse driven, and if they are going to suppress an impulse, they don't kill. They don't kill differently to suppress an impulse. Secondly, given the press associated with Jack the Ripper, I can't imagine a pile of bodies anywhere in Europe or most of Asia going unreported.

If we believe that skills and fantasy evolved at a predictable rate, that would mean Tabram, Nichols, Eddowes, and possibly Kelly were killed by the same man. Which would mean that Chapman was killed by someone else entirely, and Eddowes was sort of a "try it on and see how it fits" copycat.

If we accept the C5 as it stands, the only explanation is that the killer got exceptionally drunk for some murders, and studied like mad for others.

If we take them individually, we have to explain certain similarities. Two separate people taking a uterus in a short amount of time sort of beggars the imagination. It's just not an easy organ to find. Three victims have shorter secondary throat cuts of varying depths. That's unusual, unnecessary, and probably unique.

Personally, I see Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes as being by the same hand. I think that there are bodies somewhere else between Nichols and Chapman, maybe not human ones, but I think he had the opportunity to practice. I think he mostly had the skill when he killed Nichols, he just hadn't solidified the fantasy in his head. I think that the facial mutilation on Eddowes, and them having come first speaks to a need to blot out her face. Maybe she looked like his sister, or an ex girlfriend, or maybe he knew her in passing and didn't realize it when he took her. But I think the attendant shakiness in her mutilation is evidence of severe stress caused by her appearance. Like he got spooked, or unnerved.

Or it was bunnies. Angry, angry bunnies.

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello Joe. Thanks.

So, you are suggesting an intentional lessening of skill? That is possible.

Cheers.
LC

[sleekviper]

Well, there are a few things that come to mind Lynn. First, Chapman is killed at 5:37 A.M. Why? Chapman should look better than anyone, somebody had actual light. If just passing Nautical Dawn, entering late nautical to early Civil Dawn, his increased light output from the refraction of a pre-risen sun with enough usable light on that date in London is roughly 5:37. No one can say for sure what atmospheric conditions may have influenced the refraction of light on that morning, but 5:37 should be close. So light may have played a role with Chapman.
If something is real, it may explain a single, or multiple theory; that something being "Dear Boss". It is odd that the very next murder after "Dear Boss" states, "They say I'm a doctor now. ha ha", he looks less skilled. That mocking line could be him looking less skilled since word has it that he is skilled, or someone not as skilled and throwing in a line that could point to a reason why the skill level seems to drop. Someone trying to not look skilled, or someone that can't look skilled. Just a thought.

[lynn cates]

In conclusion ladies and gentleman . . .

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"But I think it still stands that Chapman's murder and mutilation was just miles above the others both in apparent knowledge and execution."

Can't disagree here.

"Which given the sequence is just kind of odd."

What sequence? Polly and Annie? Not odd at all. C1-C5? Remarkably odd--in fact, bizarre.

Care to draw any possible conclusion?

Cheers.
LC