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

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[c.d.]

Hello Rivkah,

My question was pretty much literal because I am not quite sure that I understand some of the arguments that are being put forth. Is there anyone suggesting that a killer who seemed to initially be targeting uteri or a kidney would not take a heart?

I also don't understand why a difference in facial mutilations becomes more important than the fact that both faces (Kate and Mary) were both mutilated.

As for a what are the odds argument, yes, it is rhetorical. Now I am going on the assumption that other people share the same view regarding the likelihood of an event taking place and that it would be highly unusual (but not impossible) for some events to take place, for example, for everyone in my apartment building to be born on the same day. But as I am finding out, much to my amazement, there are people who do not share my view on how the world operates.

c.d.

[c.d.]

It has become increasingly clear to me that I am spending waaaaay too much time on these boards so I am going to take a long lie-down for awhile.

Everyone stay well while I am away.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

solution

Hello CD. Thanks.

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

Simple. The stimuli at the horse yards was different. Jacob seems very susceptible to such.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

stats

Hello Errata. So you regard statistics as math? Very well.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

compromise

Hello Jon. Thanks. I'll meet you half way. I DO think the klller of Kate was familiar with the investigation of the other two.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

blame game

Hello (again) Jon.

"I blame modern profiling"

Ah! Now you're talking!

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Errata. So you regard statistics as math? Very well.

Cheers.
LC

Most universities teach probability and statistics in the math department. And, if you failed algebra, you aren't going to do well with statistics. Stats & probability is a complex discipline that includes logic, but math as well. A course called "finite math" was require before you could take stats at my university. In finite, you spend a couple of days just on Venn diagrams.

[Michael W Richards]

Urging people to study up on serial killers to better understand the Ripper crimes will only help mislead the next generation of Ripper students, its one reason the study "is a thousand times more confused that it was in 1888"..as my friend and very well informed researcher/author Simon Wood once said.

We have...and this is critical if anyone has any hope of ever answering any of the many questions they might have..... 5 unsolved murders that were assumed to be by one killer, certainly not proven by any evidence that any of us have ever seen,... we have a despicable killing that involves 2 weapons, and we have multiple killings of women who were then cut up leaving only their Torso's. All happening that Fall.

When you know at least 3 killers were around, and you know nothing about any of them, is it really wise to assume that you do know that one man killed all 5 women, despite the obvious differences in some victims, some locations and some injuries.

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.

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.

Cheers all

[lynn cates]

math

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC