A Murderer That Doesn't Murder

[Losmandris]

I sometimes wonder if was JtR who led the victims to their murder sites but maybe in the case of Stride he didn't for whatever reason. She led him somewhere, he took the risk in cutting her throat thinking that maybe it would be ok, then got spooked and left in a hurry. I have no doubt if things were done on his terms, stride would have been mutilated.

[caz]

I have to say that generally I am pleased with my posts but this one is piss poor to put it mildly. My ability to communicate seems to have rapidly deteriorated. Maybe I shouldn't have smoked that joint when I was in college but I digress. Let me try one more time.

My post was strictly related to the Stride killing and whether the argument that she could not have been killed by the Ripper because she was not mutilated is valid. Rather than list reasons why the Ripper might not have engaged in mutilation I tried to sneak in the back door as it were and attempted to draw a comparison with the argument why would a murderer not murder? Basically trying to follow the same line of reasoning. Show reasons why Jack might not have murdered some of the women he came in contact with and extrapolate that to why he might not have mutilated Stride. I guess I was trying to focus on what to me seems an inconsistent argument -- that is readily accepting that a murderer does not always murder for various reasons but then saying a mutilator will always mutilate period.

Even now I am not sure I am clear. Apologies all around.

c.d.

I knew what you were getting at, c.d. But then, I have kept up with all the posts by a certain contributor who is absolutely adamant that a killer who rips will only kill to rip, and when he kills he will always rip, regardless of myriad other factors. This poster suspects a man of committing two very similar ripping murders [presumably spawning the Ripper nickname] before being taken off by the men in white coats [the suspect, I meant, not the poster ]. So one could argue that from 9th September 1888 he was a murderer who neither murdered nor ripped. Even Dr Harold Shipman, who killed hundreds of his own patients, was a murderer who didn't murder, when circumstances prevented him.

I do think there are far too few Whitechapel victims - murdered or attacked/survived - to come to any hard and fast conclusions over how many were likely to be connected to a single offender, however, it strikes me as unsafe to rule out a particular victim, based on one's favourite ripper suspect, or because the crime was not a carbon copy of any of the others. Every crime was unique in its way, but very few of us would argue that a different individual was responsible on every occasion.

I find it instructive to look at all the attacks attributed to Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, as they are numerous and give us a good range of the differences we might expect to see in any single offender's tool box - if you'll pardon the expression - when he is active over a much longer period of time. I'm sure one could probably pick out the two murders which were most alike in character, and then separate out most of the other attacks - fatal and non-fatal - concentrating on the differences. If we didn't know Sutcliffe committed them all, or if he had never been caught, a determined enough theorist could have tried to argue for individual offenders in all but those two cases, but would have found even more opposition than our resident ripper theorist does over the argument that the ripper who doesn't rip doesn't exist.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I think I still might not be making myself clear and that is my fault. I think it is pretty obvious that Jack interacted with women that he did not kill. The reasons why are really not important to my point. The point is that there were reasons whatever they may be and so we readily accept the idea that a murderer does not always murder. If we accept this premise then why would anyone believe that a mutilator would always mutilate without exception?

c.d.

hi cd
i got you from the start. your analogy was fine and correct. yes just as a killer will not always kill, a mutilator will not always mutilate. and the same set of factors apply to both-the circumstances, killers mood etc etc.

[c.d.]

Thank you Caz and Abby. I feel vindicated (well somewhat) and come Thanksgiving I should be eating at the adults table again.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

We'll start with the assumption that Stride could not have been a Ripper victim because she was not mutilated and that is what the Ripper did. No mutilation? Then her killer was not Jack.

We are aware that there were intervals between the murders. I think we can reasonably assume that Jack was out on the streets during those intervals and interacted with women yet those women were not killed. How is that possible? Doesn't a killer (i.e., Jack) always kill?

I think you can see where I am going with this. This could be comparing apples and oranges but I do think it helps make a point.

c.d.

What we are not aware of is how many woman were killed by the serial mutilator, so saying "We are aware that there were intervals between the murders" presumes far too much. If this Ripper fellow only killed 2 women, Polly then Annie, there was less than 2 weeks of down time. An interval, sure, but a very brief one. So that argument is just based on your presumptions.

What you and many overlook is Why the kills happened. When there is no motive that can be determined, one must assume the murder and the mutilation was the motive. Thats a reasonable response to the 2 murders I mentioned. The fact that they are almost mirror images in terms of Victimology, Acquisition, and specifics on the murder and subsequent cuts, its again, reasonable to match these 2 by A killer.

It can be said with support that Pollys killer and Annies killer was intent on mutilation and the pm cuts were, in particular to Annie, the primary reason he killed her in the first place. Obviously ALL the evidence in the Stride case does not point to anyone seeking anything further than to just mortally injure her.

[caz]

But why are one person's presumptions any less valid than your own, Michael? You presume that whoever murdered Nichols and Chapman only had cold, clinical mutilation in mind, and was not therefore motivated by any emotions such as anger, stress, excitement, low self esteem, or the need for power and recognition - to think of just a few possible motives for this extreme form of brutality, that would not show up in the crime scene evidence. You see what you see, and you presume to know from this what was and what wasn't involved in the process, right from the killer's first thoughts of doing a woman harm, to putting those thoughts into practice, when the opportunity first knocked for him.

You also presume this man went from nought to sixty, with no previous attempts to attack a woman until the night he encountered Nichols and was not exactly successful, if the motive you presume for him is the correct one.

Which text book did you get this from:

'When there is no motive that can be determined, one must assume the murder and the mutilation was the motive.'

Why must one assume this?

[Michael W Richards]

1. But why are one person's presumptions any less valid than your own, Michael? You presume that whoever murdered Nichols and Chapman only had cold, clinical mutilation in mind, and was not therefore motivated by any emotions such as anger, stress, excitement, low self esteem, or the need for power and recognition - to think of just a few possible motives for this extreme form of brutality, that would not show up in the crime scene evidence. You see what you see, and you presume to know from this what was and what wasn't involved in the process, right from the killer's first thoughts of doing a woman harm, to putting those thoughts into practice, when the opportunity first knocked for him.

You also presume this man went from nought to sixty, with no previous attempts to attack a woman until the night he encountered Nichols and was not exactly successful, if the motive you presume for him is the correct one.

Which text book did you get this from:

'When there is no motive that can be determined, one must assume the murder and the mutilation was the motive.'

Why must one assume this?

For 1.....the physician that examined Annie suggested that the reason she was killed, and for the pm cuts, was to obtain what he obtained. So you can stop accusing me of making conclusions about evidence, this one was made by someone investigating these crimes and by someone who saw 4 of the 5 alleged Canonical victims. Annies killer killed her to do precisely what he did. Thats not speculative.

So now that the reason he killed at least one victim can be said to be understood, lets see what other victims show that kind of focus. Well, less than 2 weeks before that a man killed a woman with the same deep double throat cuts...unusual...and he it would seem, began to mutilate her abdomen. He raised her skirts to do so, and he spread her legs as in Annies case. One might assume that these murders were likely connected by the same killer...showing the same inclinations,...picking the same kind of victim in the same kind of scenario...actively soliciting...and using his knife in much the same manner. Why you would allow for a myriad of possible explanations....(like a interruption in the case of Stride to explain all the inconsistencies)...without any corroborative evidence and instead of interpreting and explaining the actual crime and its evidence. This is only something that becomes clear when you know, as I do, that you have pre-decided that this was a series of at least 5 murders by one man. You view all the evidence from that same end-game vantage point. These have not been individual murders to be examined for you for some time now, and it must be hard to disconnect from an anticipated conclusion so you can objectively view each case.

Guessing at an answer without any facts or corroborative evidence is fine for discussion boards, but not for actual investigations. Facts must come before making any conclusions, and as you know, there is not one FACT that connects any 2 of these womens murders. I personally feel comfortable connecting Only the first 2 Canonicals for the very compelling reasons I outlined.

And I certainly wouldnt add any woman with a single throat cut to that list without some real, hard evidence. Of which there is.....as you well know.....none.

[c.d.]

For 1.....the physician that examined Annie suggested that the reason she was killed, and for the pm cuts, was to obtain what he obtained.

Yes, it is a fact that he stated that but what he stated was simply his opinion not a proven fact.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

For 1.....the physician that examined Annie suggested that the reason she was killed, and for the pm cuts, was to obtain what he obtained.

Yes, it is a fact that he stated that but what he stated was simply his opinion not a proven fact.

c.d.

Youll forgive me if I accept the opinion of a medical expert who actually examined 4 of 5 Canonicals, over someone who would rather not.

[c.d.]

The very fact that you called it an "opinion" confirms my point. And once again the doctors were not "experts" as the word is used today.

c.d.

[erobitha]

Why would someone want two thirds of a bladder?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
For 1.....the physician that examined Annie suggested that the reason she was killed, and for the pm cuts, was to obtain what he obtained. So you can stop accusing me of making conclusions about evidence, this one was made by someone investigating these crimes and by someone who saw 4 of the 5 alleged Canonical victims. Annies killer killed her to do precisely what he did. Thats not speculative

But that Physician was speculating. So you’re just repeating a speculation.

So now that the reason he killed at least one victim can be said to be understood

No it can’t. He was speculating.

. Why you would allow for a myriad of possible explanations....(like a interruption in the case of Stride to explain all the inconsistencies)...without any corroborative evidence and instead of interpreting and explaining the actual crime and its evidence

Because, if the killer was interrupted, we cannot expect to have seen any evidence of this interruption. If someone decides not to do something (for whatever reason) what evidence might he have left of an intention? None.

. I personally feel comfortable connecting Only the first 2 Canonicals for the very compelling reasons I outlined

Because it suits your Issenschmidt theory.

[JeffHamm]

For 1.....the physician that examined Annie suggested that the reason she was killed, and for the pm cuts, was to obtain what he obtained. So you can stop accusing me of making conclusions about evidence, this one was made by someone investigating these crimes and by someone who saw 4 of the 5 alleged Canonical victims. Annies killer killed her to do precisely what he did. Thats not speculative.

So now that the reason he killed at least one victim can be said to be understood, lets see what other victims show that kind of focus. Well, less than 2 weeks before that a man killed a woman with the same deep double throat cuts...unusual...and he it would seem, began to mutilate her abdomen. He raised her skirts to do so, and he spread her legs as in Annies case. One might assume that these murders were likely connected by the same killer...showing the same inclinations,...picking the same kind of victim in the same kind of scenario...actively soliciting...and using his knife in much the same manner. Why you would allow for a myriad of possible explanations....(like a interruption in the case of Stride to explain all the inconsistencies)...without any corroborative evidence and instead of interpreting and explaining the actual crime and its evidence. This is only something that becomes clear when you know, as I do, that you have pre-decided that this was a series of at least 5 murders by one man. You view all the evidence from that same end-game vantage point. These have not been individual murders to be examined for you for some time now, and it must be hard to disconnect from an anticipated conclusion so you can objectively view each case.

Guessing at an answer without any facts or corroborative evidence is fine for discussion boards, but not for actual investigations. Facts must come before making any conclusions, and as you know, there is not one FACT that connects any 2 of these womens murders. I personally feel comfortable connecting Only the first 2 Canonicals for the very compelling reasons I outlined.

And I certainly wouldnt add any woman with a single throat cut to that list without some real, hard evidence. Of which there is.....as you well know.....none.

But Nicole's uterus wasn't taken, which would be odd if obtaining a uterus was the goal, unless you think he was interrupted. If so, what is the evidence that he was interrupted in that case by the way? What if at that time he wasn't intending to take her uterus? How do you know he was?

Moreover, if obtaining a uterus was the goal, and you think he was interrupted in Nichole's case, but link them because she had abdominal wounds, legs spread, and two throat cuts, dismissing a case because there's only one large main cut to the throat (though a second, more superficial one) but there is a missing uterus, and her legs are spread, and there are abdominal cuts and mutilations, would be inconsistent, particularly given the similarities like placing bits over shoulders, presumably in aid of obtaining the uterus.

How, given the basis of your confident linking of Nichols and Chapman, can you not link Eddowes as well to those two?

- Jeff

[caz]

For 1.....the physician that examined Annie suggested that the reason she was killed, and for the pm cuts, was to obtain what he obtained.

Yes, it is a fact that he stated that but what he stated was simply his opinion not a proven fact.

c.d.

Quite so, c.d. I gave up reading Michael's post after that bit of insightful reasoning.

I wonder if Michael would be similarly impressed if his suspect's condition had been diagnosed by having his bumps felt.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why would someone want two thirds of a bladder?

Don't tempt me...

Love,

Caz
X