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

[RivkahChaya]

Hello CD. I know of no such suggestion.

I think he's taking Errata's long post ad absurdum.

It seems like we have gone full circle back to the whole what are the odds argument?

But as I have found out the hard way, a what are the odds argument will get you nowhere on these boards.

I think you are missing the actual objection to the "What are the odds?" argument. You have employed it as a rhetorical device. You are not literally asking someone to tell you what the odds are, albeit you don't know what they actually are, and are yet working on the assumption that they do not favor the event happening.

If you were literally asking what the odds were, and what variables should be taken into account, that would be an interesting starting point for a discussion, OR, if you had already figured those things, and were posting the details for other people to study, that would be interesting as well, and admirable.

However, when you say "What are the odds?" without even knowing them, all you are really saying is "My intuition tells me it's very unlikely, therefore it didn't happen; end of discussion."

If we go the multiple killer route, it seems to me that Whitechapel in 1888 was like a Star Trek convention for body parts enthusiasts.

Not a Star Trek convention, but certainly a place people moved to from other areas. I have posted in detail about that already, though.

What we have are minimal differences which indicate the killer is keeping abreast of the murder

And leaving the other under the victim's head.

[Wickerman]

I do urge people to look at killers like Peter Sutcliffe and Robert Napper, for examples of different victim ages and types, or outdoor/indoor attacks, that were entirely opportunistic, and not remotely personal in the sense being expressed here.

Hi Caz.
A couple of us, Observer & myself have tried to raise the Yorkshire Ripper murders as a fine example of how a killer does not restrict himself to age, location, weapon or method of attack.
'Some' impose restraints on "JtR" that really did not exist. I blame modern profiling for the cause of this myopic view.

Regards, Jon S.

[caz]

Hello Caz,

You don't post often (unfortunately) but when you do you are like a breath of fresh air.

But as I have found out the hard way, a what are the odds argument will get you nowhere on these boards.

c.d.

Thanks c.d.

Threads like this tend to make me giggle, so it's all good.

Just as beggars can't be choosers, a guy who wanted to find women to murder and mutilate in places where he had some chance of getting away with it had to take what he could get.

Even if we were to attribute every single one of the Whitechapel Murders to one man such as this, his opportunities were not that great in number, and we have a tiny sample of victims to consider - even tinier for those who insist on exclusions for no sound reasons.

Yet we see attempts here to analyse minutely the killer's personal reasons for selecting particular victims and not others, by age or size for example. How can we possibly know that it wasn't simply a case of grabbing an opportunity if and when it arose, and doing whatever damage to the body that is possible for man to conceive of, and which this man in particular happened to fancy trying, while he had the knife in his hand and the chance to play with it? Sorry if it sounds insensitive, but one female corpse is much like another in terms of what it contains and what a sharp knife can do to it.

I do urge people to look at killers like Peter Sutcliffe and Robert Napper, for examples of different victim ages and types, or outdoor/indoor attacks, that were entirely opportunistic, and not remotely personal in the sense being expressed here. Every killing is personal to the killer, whether the victim was his mother, his lover, or someone he saw for the first time just seconds before he brought a hammer down on her head.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

"Yes, there are differences in the murders but if we can offer a reasonable explanation to explain the differences then to me they are not significant."

Very well, I look forward to a reasonable explanation.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn.

Here is a brief outline of what I consider a 'reasonable' explanation for the differences, though to my mind they are not significant enough, you may disagree.
Concerning the Chapman murder.

On Sept 19th at the inquest Dr. Phillips was asked about the eyes:
The Foreman: "Was any photograph of the eyes of the deceased taken, in case they should retain any impression of the murderer."


On Sept 26th, at the inquest, Coroner Baxter advised:
“The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts.”


With Eddowes we now have the appearance of meaningless cuts. We also see an attempt to slice the eyes. However, the 'skill' (however that is defined) is still apparent in the mutilations of Eddowes as it was with Chapman.

In response to a question by the Coroner, Phillips gave his opinion on 'skill':
[Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - "I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste."

Likewise Dr. Brown offered a similar reasoning over Eddowes:
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - "He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them."

What we have are minimal differences which indicate the killer is keeping abreast of the murder inquiry, and where 'sloppy' workmanship may be apparent, is the result of the consequence of haste.
While at the same time demonstrating in both cases, a level of anatomical knowledge sufficient to indicate the same hand at work.

We are looking at someone with a degree of anatomical knowledge, perhaps above that of the common man. While at the same time being quite adept with the use of the knife.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Lynn,

Ah, but how do we account for the differences in those "two near duplicates?"

c.d.

Hi cd,

I find it fascinating that we seem to interpret the data so differently at times. Not just specifically you and I cd, but in broader strokes.

On the above issue, ...I believe Location solves that riddle. Polly was attacked and killed in an almost identical manner, and the wounds that Polly suffered could easily be interpreted as the preliminary acts of someone like the man who killed Annie eventually performs. So often Ive heard the argument that the evolution factor can explain many of the variances that lead one to suspect that these are not 5 murders connected by killer...well I would suppose then the same rules would apply if we see progressive, but repetitive actions.

I believe he felt that the backyard, despite the coming dawn, offered him a better chance for a few minutes more with his victim than the open-ended street did.

What seems to slip through the grasp of most of these pro-Canonical arguments, and what is extremely thread specific, is that we KNOW more than one killer...at least 2 men....with very strange and rare tendencies when it comes to murdering people...did share the same town at the same time. We also can safely assume that the killer of Martha Tabram was not the same man that killed Polly and Annie, for obvious reasons. And with the support of contemporary officials. Thats 3 killers. Torsomaker, Jack and Tabrams likely 2murderers...based on the idea that Killeen correctly portrayed the larger wound, and the probability that one killer would switch weapons from a pen knife to a bayonet and make one more stab. So....3 or 4 killers.....and all of the crimes were horrific, the Torsos, Marthas death, and 4 of the five Canonicals. Liz Strides death is pedestrian compared with the carnage going on that Fall.

Which brings up the issue of her death. She is hardly a Ripped victim, and there is a good chance that she wasnt killed by the same man as C1 and C2 were.....so that makes what, ....4 or 5 killers?

All killing in East London, if we assume Torso man committed his murders there...but within a very small geographic area to say the least.

Im not saying that one man could not have committed all 5 murders, Ive never said that in as many words, but I have said that a few of the murders do not have evidence that supports that conjecture. With Polly and Annie, ...and ONLY with Polly and Annie, do we see absolutely consistent methodology, consistent victimology, and consistent objective...which has to be the mutilation of the dead women's abdomens. If not organ acquisition.

Best regards

[caz]

Hi,

After removing other organs from previous victims, isn't the heart the ultimate prize?? There are clear links, injuries inflicted on Kelly are also seen on Eddowes, injuries on Eddowes are seen in Chapman, Chapman in Nichols and so on. Overall they're very similar, only as they progress do they become much worse. Cut throats and then mutilation with the exception of Stride whom I still think was at the same hand. My opinion is this ... He looks for a victim , knows he can't do it in his own home or workplace so next best location that he knows best is the streets. Comes across Nichols, fairly quiet time of night in a particular fairly quiet street and carries out enough to satisfy him for now. Week later he wants to inflict more injuries and luckily enough he finds Chapman and even more of a bonus it's secluded so more time hence worse mutilations. He waits or has to wait 3 weeks and his urge is stronger and finds Stride, again somewhere secluded but this time he's interrupted so he leaves unsatisfied. Desperately wanting to fulfil his desire he finds Eddowes and added bonus ends in a quiet location, a square where the traffic is minimal so he is able to carry out even worse mutilations. At this point his urge is heightened and to really achieve what he wants he thinks maybe its too risky on the street and the only way he can really do what he wants to do is indoors and uninterrupted hence Kelly. It might seem a bit far fetched for some but that's how I see it. Love to here more opinions please???

Nic

Again, I can find no fault with your reasoning. It's all entirely possible, plausible, even probable, and nobody has yet explained to me why it's impossible, implausible, or even vaguely unlikely.

If the victims helped select the locations, an alternative possibility is that MJK was no different, and led her killer back to her room after picking him up on the street. It was November after all, so being able to offer a customer shelter and warmth was a bonus. He may or may not have known beforehand that he would have that luxury. I'm not sure how easy it would have been for him to find a relatively private indoor location with a lone female occupant, without the woman's assistance.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

Hello Raven,

It seems like we have gone full circle back to the whole what are the odds argument? If we go the multiple killer route, it seems to me that Whitechapel in 1888 was like a Star Trek convention for body parts enthusiasts.

c.d.

Multiple serial killers in one area is not common, but not unheard of. I think there were two in New York who overlapped with Son of Sam, and about 5 years ago, we had three in our area, though now there is only one. Far more likely to happen in a big city than in Bucksnort Tennessee. For obvious reasons.

But yeah, the odds are against it. Far be it from me to argue with math. But that being said, there is always the caveat that just because it is freakishly unlikely, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

In my admittedly insanely long treatise on fetishes, I addressed the difference between expansion of a fantasy and the alteration of a fantasy. The first happens, especially if the person becomes numb to the original thrill. The second does not without a lot of time, years in fact. Taking the uterus AND a kidney fits with the idea of expanding a fantasy. Switching to the heart and leaving the uterus behind is an alteration of a fantasy, and does not fit with any kind of obsessive mind. Had he taken the uterus and the heart, I would feel better about declaring it the same guy.

One also can't ignore the fact that the heart is highly symbolic. Focusing attention on the heart does not indicate a fetish. It can simply be a message, to the authorities or to the victim. Perhaps he simply took her heart because she would not give it to him. But clearly the uterus is not as symbolic. We cannot say he took her uterus because she would not give it to him. That's weird. And there have always been symbolic targets in murder that are not fetish. Eyes, heart, tongue, penis, even hands. They find a guy stabbed to death with his penis cut off, that tells us something. We can't help but think that this man's penis played an integral part in the reason for his death. Like he was sticking it where he shouldn't. The uterus lacks such clear symbolism. The most common bodily associations with sex on a woman are breasts, external genitalia, and mouth, in that order. Internal genitalia probably comes next, but typically the association is formed by a sight that creates arousal. So the uterus is typically associated with generation and not sex, though I can't swear that was true in the Victorian era. But I trust that we have been visual creatures for awhile not.

As it happens, I don't think Kelly was murdered by a serial killer. I think she was murdered by a psychotic stalker. I think her killer thought he knew her. He may have actually known her, but it's also possible that she simply represented someone else he knew, and so her murder was personal despite the fact she never knew him. A little like Ted Bundy's victims. A lot like Jeffrey Dahmer's victims, where in his head there was a relationship with these men he had known for mere hours that simply didn't exist. Cannibalism is a very intimate act. Far more intimate than his actual relationships with these men warranted. But despite the fact I cite serial killers for examples, it isn't something peculiar to serial killers. The guy who shot John Lennon had it, the guy who shot Reagan, it's inherent to stalkers, and it just so happens Bundy and Dahmer were, at heart, stalkers.

As an aside, I did a thesis on fetish and obsessive thinking. And it was because the topic I really wanted to do was turned down, so I proposed this one thinking that in the heart of the bible belt, they would let me do the one I wanted. I was wrong. I ended up never finishing, because three months of work led to not being able to enter into a relationship without extremely intrusive and distasteful information ruining everything. The moral of the story is, never commit a year or more of your life to something you may not be able to handle appropriately.

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

You don't post often (unfortunately) but when you do you are like a breath of fresh air.

But as I have found out the hard way, a what are the odds argument will get you nowhere on these boards.

c.d.

[caz]

Hi

I don't think there is a personal link in the case of MJK, I think it's just a case of progression and pushing the boundaries. When we compare MJK to Eddowes, all the signs are there, face mutilations, removal of organs and and even the specific areas where he placed the intestines for example. This is even apparent in Chapman but there were no facial mutilations, To me it's a case of natural progression and the result being Kelly where he had time and location to progress even further. I do think mutilating the face is personal but this could have been his growing hatred not the fact that he knew them.

Absolutely, Nic. I know it's not fashionable to ask "What are the chances?" but let's face it - what are the chances that somebody close to MJK just happened to want her dead, and just happened to have an overwhelming personal desire to mutilate her face, so soon after somebody else had murdered and mutilated Eddowes, another Spitalfields unfortunate, just a short walk away?

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.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Caroline. Ah, but would they find two near duplicates?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Ah, but how do we account for the differences in those "two near duplicates?"

c.d.

[lynn cates]

duplication

Hello Caroline. Ah, but would they find two near duplicates?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi all,

Personally, I think Stride is a ripper victim. No mutilation tells me that he was interrupted or realised maybe that the location didn't give him enough time to carried out more injuries hence Eddowes. For some reason I'm not getting that JTR knew MJK personally, I feel it's more a general dislike for women probably women who lead that life of prostitution/alcoholism etc. The injuries inflicted on MJK just tell me that this is someone who has made the most of the location (less likelihood of interruptions and more time to spend). The other victims locations were enough for him to carry out his mutilations sufficiently but not as much as a room with a locked door.

Hi Nic,

You want to watch your common sense levels. Too much of it will make you unpopular with those who like their 'solutions' to be ten times more complicated than they need to be.

If only they were willing to look at the documented murders of identified serial killers, they would find more variation between their victims, locations, murder weapons, injuries, disposal etc etc, than the C5 (or indeed the entire Whitechapel series from Smith to Coles) gives us.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Raven,

It seems like we have gone full circle back to the whole what are the odds argument? If we go the multiple killer route, it seems to me that Whitechapel in 1888 was like a Star Trek convention for body parts enthusiasts.

c.d.

[RavenDarkendale]

So is it being suggested that not only were there multiple killers but there was a killer with a uterus fetish and another with a heart fetish and maybe another one with a kidney fetish?

c.d.

No. Single killer or multiple killers, they had a body parts fetish, which as has been pointed out is common enough, but they can vary from time to time on a whim, like the guy with the tattooed skin. Remember some victims Tabram, Nichols, Stride, for examples, had no body parts stolen. Then comes the uterus, kidney, etc. Maybe the Torso killer was saving heads like Dhalmer.

[lynn cates]

not suggestive

Hello CD. I know of no such suggestion.

Cheers.
LC