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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[lynn cates]

framed

Hello Boris.

"About comparing modern serial killer cases to very cold cases like the Whitechapel murders, I think it's an interesting intellectual game but wouldn't consider it a prerequisite for aspiring Ripper hunters. Trouble is that many people seem to get their info mainly from websites that feature short text documents on each case, together with some statistics and mug shots of the killer. At first glance, many of these condensed bits and pieces of information seem to follow a certain pattern - violent childhood, psychological, psycho-social and/or physical deficiencies, torture, bloodlust, often coupled with a strong sex drive, etc. However, once you single out a few cases and explore them in full, you will soon find out that each and every one of them is different and unique. This makes comparing cases problematic and probable[.]"

I'm with you. This extract is suitable for framing.

Cheers.
LC

[bolo]

Hello Michael,

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.

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.

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).

About comparing modern serial killer cases to very cold cases like the Whitechapel murders, I think it's an interesting intellectual game but wouldn't consider it a prerequisite for aspiring Ripper hunters. Trouble is that many people seem to get their info mainly from websites that feature short text documents on each case, together with some statistics and mug shots of the killer. At first glance, many of these condensed bits and pieces of information seem to follow a certain pattern - violent childhood, psychological, psycho-social and/or physical deficiencies, torture, bloodlust, often coupled with a strong sex drive, etc. However, once you single out a few cases and explore them in full, you will soon find out that each and every one of them is different and unique. This makes comparing cases problematic and probably is one of the reasons why these killers are so hard to catch.

Regards,

Boris

[Abby Normal]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"If you see what looks like a tiger coming towards you in the dark and you shoot him between the eyes, chances are you will bag your tiger and live to tell the tale. It's somewhat less likely that you will be eaten by two one-eyed tigers, who were walking towards you arm-in-arm and missed your bullet."

Rot.

Cheers.
CR

PS. As my good friend Buzz Lightyear would say: To infinity [posts], and beyond.

Hi Colin
Were you the one who showed the statistics of women murdered in London in 1888 was approx 6 or 7 (im guessing here) higher in previous and after years?

With all other things considered, i find this info pointing to a single serial killer at work.

[Errata]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"If you see what looks like a tiger coming towards you in the dark and you shoot him between the eyes, chances are you will bag your tiger and live to tell the tale. It's somewhat less likely that you will be eaten by two one-eyed tigers, who were walking towards you arm-in-arm and missed your bullet."

Rot.

Cheers.
CR

PS. As my good friend Buzz Lightyear would say: To infinity [posts], and beyond.

In medicine it's "If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras". Which is a totally solid plan. But it doesn't mean that the idea of zebras never comes up in conversation, because once in a blue moon you are going to be facing down a stampede of zebras. As someone with evidently a very peculiar physiology and immunity, I have a healthy (or unhealthy) respect for zebras.

I once had an interesting immune response called reverse pityriasis rosea. Which is essentially a virus causing small skin lesions instead of coughing and sneezing. Which is rare. Now any doc in a box will tell you that a woman who lives with cats who comes in with a pencil eraser sized itchy rash on her leg has ringworm. And I was treated for ringworm. And every other spot that cropped up (which ended up being a lot) was treated for ringworm. I didn't have ringworm, so it didn't go away. When I went to get it actually tested, the lesion had the fungal appearance of ringworm, and when tested was fungal the way ringworm is. Because as it turns out, if you don't have ringworm, but treat yourself for ringworm, you give yourself the fungus that accompanies ringworm, just without the parasite. It took two months to figure out what the lesions were, and it was a couple of weeks after the correct diagnosis that I finally was cured of the ringworm I didn't have in the first place.

Why do I tell this kind of gross story? Aside from pointing out that zebras are lurking out there, it demonstrates that expectation alters a situation. The expectation was that I had ringworm. That expectation not only delayed a correct diagnosis, but being treated as a ringworm patient gave me the symptoms of ringworm, down to the fungal infection in the lesions. Expectation of ringworm resulted in positive tests for ringworm. Despite the fact I didn't actually have it. Expectation of a serial killer results in proof of a serial killer. It has in one instance even created a serial killer. Expectation of a serial killer can easily lead to more unsolved murders, if no one is looking for a one off. And the same applies for single killers. If you expect it, you find it. But proof is not truth. We can assemble a mountain of evidence one way or the other that constitutes proof in any court of law. But that doesn't make it truth.

Do we seek proof, or do we seek truth? And can either be anything other than subjective without a way to confirm a theory? I tend not to be concerned with the odds. Frankly, my own experience tells me that the boggling vagaries of the human mind trump odds any day. But that's my experience. But a person getting struck by lightening is so rare as to be nigh impossible. But if someone comes in to the ER during a storm soaking wet with a terrible burn and their body reacting to a severe electrical shock, we don't ignore the possibility, no matter how unlikely.

I presented a theory. It is not something I am emotionally wedded to. If someone wants to tear it apart, I'm not going to cry. I welcome it in fact. But it cannot be dismissed based on odds. It has to be challenged on facts available about the crime itself or human behavior. So I'll start it off. One problem with my theory is that such obsessive behavior precludes stopping of one's own free will. It would also cause profound distress to be incarcerated and deprived of obsessive rituals, to the point that it would result in suicide after incarceration, or a complete breakdown. Which would include confession. So we are left with the killer moving or dying. And there isn't a lot of evidence to support either of those conditions.

[Colin Roberts]

rot

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"If you see what looks like a tiger coming towards you in the dark and you shoot him between the eyes, chances are you will bag your tiger and live to tell the tale. It's somewhat less likely that you will be eaten by two one-eyed tigers, who were walking towards you arm-in-arm and missed your bullet."

Rot.

Cheers.
CR

PS. As my good friend Buzz Lightyear would say: To infinity [posts], and beyond.

[Colin Roberts]

Yes, someday I hope someone draws a map of the Whitechapel victims, writes an equation of the resulting curve, and then takes its derivative to find the killer.

That would be a welcome change from the probability rot about likelihood.

I should think that the second derivative of the progression of your arrogance, between posts 1 and 8,564 would be more telling.

[lynn cates]

calculus of the ripper

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

Yes, someday I hope someone draws a map of the Whitechapel victims, writes an equation of the resulting curve, and then takes its derivative to find the killer.

That would be a welcome change from the probability rot about likelihood.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

sample

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Yes, one must be careful about drawing representative samples.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Yes, I had the three hour course in probability and statistics at university. Easy A. But I also studied real math.

OK, I get your point, but the basic composition (called, usually, Freshman Comp, W101, or something) is always in the English department, even though no one who is majoring in English ever has to take it, because we either test out of in during orientation, or have it waived on the basis of our SAT scores (the latter, in my case).

Finite math and probability and stats were not easy for me, as I don't generally wrap my head around math well, but they were interesting, so I did much better than I would have in some of the other math options, like intro calculus, or the advanced trig class, or whatever else the limited number of options for math classes I had were, since I didn't test well in placement at orientation. I felt like I'd done well not to get stuck talking the non-credit prep course.