If There Were Multiple Killers Wouldn't We Expect to See More Killings?

[Wickerman]

I would urge anyone who is interested in the Yorkshire Ripper murders to read, Wicked Beyond Belief, but the 2006 edition.

http://www.amazon.ca/Wicked-Beyond-Belief-Yorkshire-Ripper/dp/0007450737

It really should be required reading for anyone interested in how a serial killer can operate, and the other side of the coin, how a police investigation can fall apart.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Hello Michael,



of course everyone should work with the (little) evidence that is there and try to keep the fantasy stuff out of it, and that is exactly what I'm doing. It's just that some of my interpretations of the available evidence slowly changed over time from a firm belief in the C5 to a scenario with multiple killers (I call it C3+ ). I haven't really fleshed it out yet, that's why I keep it at following the tracks of full-time researchers and authors who know a heck of a lot more about the case than I ever will and take threads like this as a welcome opportunity to play around with my thoughts in public to see what others make of it (not a lot of feedback so far, guess that should tell me something).

I disagree about keeping the fantasy stuff out. Well, unless we're talking vampires or blood lusty unicorns or some such. Thats just silly. But I think the what-ifs are important. Constructing a narrative is important. Blind guesswork and assumptions pulled out of thin air are important. In every group there is a guy who is not high on the totem pole. He doesn't get a lot of respect, he is often wrong, can be distracting, sometimes even foolish. And he is absolutely the catalyst for original thought. An omega wolf, if you will. An example from fine cinema would be Shaggy from Scooby-Doo. Shaggy says something dumb, but it makes Velma think of something very smart, and they solve the case. Massive assumptions are useless in court, but between investigators can trigger connections between two seemingly disparate pieces of information. In other words, a total lack of academic rigor can inspire logical thought. It's not more important than fact, but it can be as important.

But I'm a storyteller by trade, so maybe I'm a bit biased

[Errata]

Whoa... psychotic unicorn. It all makes sense. The way the killer triggered no alarm in the victims, the way the killer was strong enough to subdue even the larger women, the way no one saw the killer leaving a crime scene. Even taking the uteruses of prostitutes in deranged punishment for being cheated out of virginity. I have totally blown this case wiiide open.

[MsWeatherwax]

Whoa... psychotic unicorn. It all makes sense. The way the killer triggered no alarm in the victims, the way the killer was strong enough to subdue even the larger women, the way no one saw the killer leaving a crime scene. Even taking the uteruses of prostitutes in deranged punishment for being cheated out of virginity. I have totally blown this case wiiide open.

This makes at least as much sense as psychopathic Van Gogh and his apparently well sharpened paintbrushes.

[Errata]

This makes at least as much sense as psychopathic Van Gogh and his apparently well sharpened paintbrushes.

All I'm saying is... If you saw a unicorn prancing towards you in your middle years, wouldn't you be so frozen with shock and flabbergastery that it could canter right up to you and slash your throat with it's horn?

I'm warming to the idea.

[The Good Michael]

All I'm saying is... If you saw a unicorn prancing towards you in your middle years, wouldn't you be so frozen with shock and flabbergastery that it could canter right up to you and slash your throat with it's horn?

Where I come from, unicorns are illusive and shy and will run unless cornered...much like Jack the Ripper...Full Circle! Yeah, baby!

Smug Mike

[bolo]

Hello Lynn,

thank you!

Hello Errata,

I disagree about keeping the fantasy stuff out. Well, unless we're talking vampires or blood lusty unicorns or some such. Thats just silly. But I think the what-ifs are important. Constructing a narrative is important. Blind guesswork and assumptions pulled out of thin air are important. In every group there is a guy who is not high on the totem pole. He doesn't get a lot of respect, he is often wrong, can be distracting, sometimes even foolish. And he is absolutely the catalyst for original thought. An omega wolf, if you will. An example from fine cinema would be Shaggy from Scooby-Doo. Shaggy says something dumb, but it makes Velma think of something very smart, and they solve the case. Massive assumptions are useless in court, but between investigators can trigger connections between two seemingly disparate pieces of information. In other words, a total lack of academic rigor can inspire logical thought. It's not more important than fact, but it can be as important.

I agree with you to some extend, that's why I wrote "...and try to keep the fantasy stuff out of it...". Even boundless theorizing can be worthwhile because ideally, it makes people think outside the box. On the other hand, it may also lead to rather silly suspects such as Vincent van Gogh, Lewis Carrol or Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec if you don't know where to stop. The line between inspiring creative thinking and downright nonsense is quite thin, at least that goes for authors who try to sell their fiction as non-fiction. That's not the way to go, inspiring or not, as hilarious as it may seem to picture Monsieur Toulouse-Lautrec roaming the streets of Whitechapel in 1888 with an expensive overcoat and extra-large top hat... ...Mini-Astrakhan Man?

But I'm a storyteller by trade, so maybe I'm a bit biased

It's quite noticeable, and I must say that I enjoy reading your posts. I'd like to know more about your work if possible.

Regards,

Boris

[RivkahChaya]

All I'm saying is... If you saw a unicorn prancing towards you in your middle years, wouldn't you be so frozen with shock and flabbergastery that it could canter right up to you and slash your throat with it's horn?

I'm warming to the idea.

Maybe you could corner a woman, and go on a Jeff Goldblum rant, until she slits her own throat.

[Nic1950]

Hi

I know, maybe my thinking is too straight forward for some but that's that! I wouldn't have thought someone as deranged as JTR would have followed a strict pattern, what I would like to know is what followed?? After MJK what next? Or was there a next?
Just to add a comment about the focus on the uterus, this is another target for women, to mutilate/ remove it again is another sign of his hatred for women (women of that profression maybe). Even facial mutialtion is a female thing really!!

Thanks

[Fisherman]

I wouldn't have thought someone as deranged as JTR would have followed a strict pattern

Have a look at the range of serialists, Nic. What has them caught every now and then is their way of clinging to a locked MO and sometimes also a locked choice of women. And some of these killers are "deranged" whereas others are not so, but instead quite clever people, able to blend in anywhere.

All the best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Urging people to study up on serial killers to better understand the Ripper crimes will only help mislead the next generation of Ripper students...

Hi Mike,

I should have thought the best way to mislead the next generation of ripper students would be to discourage them from educating themselves about serial killers and making their own comparisons with the Whitechapel murders. You must have done this yourself in order to identify the glaring differences between the two, so how come you were not misled? Why do you fear that even the dimmest new student would not grasp what you did? If it is indeed a 'fantasy' that Spitalfields unfortunates were being murdered by a serial mutilator, then surely the more we study documented cases of genuine serial murder, the more evidence we should find that you are right about the 'reality' down in Whitechapel being something very different.

Fantasy vs Reality is an ongoing battle in Rippeology,... so its clear, in general, it is fantasy to believe that there is any proof that Jack the Ripper was a serial killer, as it would be to believe that the 5 women were killed by any individual. Sure...youre allowed to feel whatever you like about these cases, but to continually suggest serial murders without one single scrap of evidence to support it isnt really helping anyone learn anything.

And yet your advice to new students is to learn nothing at all about serial killers, so they will begin by believing Jack the Ripper was one, and will go on believing it, because they won't have your remarkable insight into why the comparison is invalid. Or are you expecting them to take your word for it? How would that be less misleading than encouraging them to study all the evidence on which your word is presumably based?

All Im suggesting is look at the evidence in these cases, all some others are suggesting is that the answers lie in the data of serial killers in the modern era.

All I'm suggesting is that we look at both, because if you have the fantasy and the reality the right way round it should become all too screamingly obvious to the rest of us.

I prefer to look in the directions that the evidence suggests are probable, but to each their own I suppose. If its probable within serial killer dogma that a serial mutilator kills without even a mutilation attempt...then I guess I can see an argument for Stride. However, its not probable...its merely possible.

No - your serial killer dogma seems to be that no serial mutilator is ever unwilling or unable to attempt mutilation, no matter how many victims he attacks during his lifetime and no matter what may be going on around him on each occasion. Since you must have read up about every known serial mutilator to arrive at this conclusion, and would discourage others from doing the same, perhaps you could list these serial mutilators with a 100% success record.

But why would you see 'an argument for Stride' if only you could find a serial mutilator who hadn't managed to mutilate every single victim? I thought you didn't believe in a serial mutilator on the streets in 1888, with or without Stride.

Love,

Caz
X

[Nic1950]

[QUOTE=Nic1950;253984]Hi

I know, maybe my thinking is too straight forward for some but that's that! I wouldn't have thought someone as deranged as JTR would have followed a strict pattern.


This was meant to say would not have followed a strict pattern!

[lynn cates]

deranged

Hello Nic.

"I wouldn't have thought someone as deranged as JTR . . ."

Hmm, how deranged was he?

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Prussian Princess...

Hello Nic.

"I wouldn't have thought someone as deranged as JTR . . ."

Hmm, how deranged was he?

Cheers.
LC

Good question Lynn. I personally think she was a cold, calculating Prussian agitator...


Greg

[Nic1950]

Hi

As deranged as he needed to be unless cutting people up is normal behaviour?
Thanks