All Ripper profiling

[The Good Michael]

First off to Good Michael, if what you use to link these murders are geography and historical timing, then what can I say?

You forgot: Cut throats and prostitutes, and if you don't think geography plays a part in things, you're off your nut.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

You forgot: Cut throats and prostitutes, and if you don't think geography plays a part in things, you're off your nut.

Mike

Again you lump all 5 women into the "Prostitute" category, when you know full well that only 2 women were known to be soliciting at the time they meet their killer. Is there a learning disability I should be accounting for here?

Since almost anyone in the area could get their hands on a knife and we have records of people committing suicide by slitting their own throats and also killing women..during that same Fall of Terror, .....how is it that you see any knife crime as unusual, or rare? And if you do feel the cut throat is important in the determination of the killer, then why would you include a woman whose throat was cut once...unlike the rest of the Canonicals, 3 of which were almost beheaded.

But if youd like to provide proof that Liz Stride, Kate Eddowes, and Mary Kelly were soliciting at the time of their deaths then of course I will withdraw my comments, again, proof would have to be factual...not merely your instincts or hunches as usual. I know well that you cant, no-one can, and therefore the argument that they were is invalid and is sheer speculation.

As to knife crimes in the East End, surely youre not claiming Jack was responsible for all of them....due to the geography?

Could you at least provide a cogent and well reasoned argument when you intend on contradicting someone?

Cheers

[caz]

You forgot: Cut throats and prostitutes, and if you don't think geography plays a part in things, you're off your nut.

Mike

Hi GM,

Really, it's not worth arguing with someone who just doesn't 'get' the closeness in time, space, character and rarity value of these unfortunate murders (pun intended), which were classified as 'The Whitechapel Murders' for that very reason.

I don't know why Michael is so fixated on whether or not all the victims were willing to sell sexual services when they met their killer. What possible difference would it make to a man with a knife and an itch to use it, except to make things easier for him?

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

Stride

Liz Stride, for example, could have been killed by simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, there is no indication that a killer who sought mutilation post mortem met up with her.

So why do people assume it anyway?

Most of us don't assume it. We refuse to discount it - not the same thing. Your argument that, because there was no abdominal mutilation there has to be a different killer - that is an assumption surely? I have no problem with people making assumptions, as long as they accept that's what they are doing and don't seek to deny the same privilege to others.

A different killer is one possible explanation for the lack of mutilation to Stride, but only one. There are others.

[Bridewell]

What possible difference would it make to a man with a knife and an itch to use it, except to make things easier for him?

Indeed. Another possible reason for their being no mutilation - too difficult. Too risky. However many of the women there were who died at the hand of the so-called Ripper, one thing we know is that that individual was never caught. So either he got very lucky or his risk assessment was good. If what Schwartz saw was the beginning of a Ripper assault on Stride, the killer botched it. Solution? Kill the victim and move on. I'm not claiming that's how it was - just refusing to discount the possibility.

[The Good Michael]

Again you lump all 5 women into the "Prostitute" category, when you know full well that only 2 women were known to be soliciting at the time they meet their killer. Is there a learning disability I should be accounting for here?

Since almost anyone in the area could get their hands on a knife and we have records of people committing suicide by slitting their own throats and also killing women..during that same Fall of Terror, .....how is it that you see any knife crime as unusual, or rare? And if you do feel the cut throat is important in the determination of the killer, then why would you include a woman whose throat was cut once...unlike the rest of the Canonicals, 3 of which were almost beheaded.

But if youd like to provide proof that Liz Stride, Kate Eddowes, and Mary Kelly were soliciting at the time of their deaths then of course I will withdraw my comments, again, proof would have to be factual...not merely your instincts or hunches as usual. I know well that you cant, no-one can, and therefore the argument that they were is invalid and is sheer speculation.

As to knife crimes in the East End, surely youre not claiming Jack was responsible for all of them....due to the geography?

Could you at least provide a cogent and well reasoned argument when you intend on contradicting someone?

You wouldn't understand anything well-reasoned. We all understand that much. You make asinine arguments based upon what you think people said. I'd suggest you learn to read better and then consult someone with sense, and then post your arguments. Until you do so, it's like talking to Batman or Perry Mason all over again. And neither of them had any sense either.

Cheers,

Mike

[caz]

Ooh you are awful, GM.

But I like you.

Love,

Della Street
X

[Michael W Richards]

You wouldn't understand anything well-reasoned. We all understand that much. You make asinine arguments based upon what you think people said. I'd suggest you learn to read better and then consult someone with sense, and then post your arguments. Until you do so, it's like talking to Batman or Perry Mason all over again. And neither of them had any sense either.

Cheers,

Mike

And you'll be Baron for as long as I know you, he wasn't taken very seriously either. When confronted with a challenge you've always resorted to this kind of s*** as a way of brushing aside realities.

The reality is that knife crimes were not rare, whether slitting a throat, brandishing or stabbing, and there is not one single shred of evidence that 3 of the 5 Canonicals were actively soliciting at the time of their death, there is in fact evidence that suggests at least one of them wasn't.

The name calling and the truth shuffling is a bit pedantic though, surely youd like to be seen as an adult when conversing.

Regards

[caz]

I think I've worked it out.

Perry (aka Michael) proposes a person who pursued only proven prossies past their prime, in the process of trying to procure and possess their procreative parts.

As you can see, I wasn't taking the p there.

He bases this on just two murders, where the evidence might have appeared to support such a proposition - if it had made any sense to start with.

He then assumes a different killer for all the other attacks, on the basis that the victims may not have been similarly plying their trade at the time, or no attempt was made to obtain their womb, whether success would have been possible or not in the circumstances.

He might as well propose that the killer was only after women called Nichols, and assume different killers for all the rest who were called something else.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

May I ask you something, Michael?

If everything about the Stride murder had been exactly the same, except that her womb had been taken away, or an apparent attempt had been made to do so, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your thinking would be somewhat different today.

What I'm getting at is that you don't know the killer of Nichols and Chapman would not have targeted any woman unless he could be 100% sure she was on the game. But let's imagine this same man had been in Berner St, had seen Stride outside the club, and wrongly assumed she was there to find customers - on the basis that we can all make assumptions. The killer was alone and unobserved when he committed himself to overpowering her, laying her down and cutting her throat. But what, in your opinion, would have been his window of opportunity to obtain her womb afterwards? If you believe there would have been no chance of him succeeding and getting away unobserved, wouldn't that seriously undermine your argument that he would have made an attempt regardless, if this was the same man who had recently got away by the skin of his teeth in Hanbury St?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

If everything about the Stride murder had been exactly the same, except that her womb had been taken away, or an apparent attempt had been made to do so, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your thinking would be somewhat different today.

Caz,

sorry to interject here (not really), but he will always find difference enough with Stride because that connects to Berner Street and the grand conspiracy (whatever that may be). Indeed there are many detailed differences in all the murders, but only Stride's and Kelly's lean themselves to crackpot (or otherwise) theories it seems... Eddowes on occasion as well. What I find silly is that all of us note the differences and they've been repeated over and over on these boards, yet most of use use many different factors to come to a tentative conclusion based upon real or imagined concepts of probability. The conspiracists weigh things differently, sometimes throwing out factors completely to bolster their cases. They may be correct in the end.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

Since its uncharacteristically a politely worded request for some answers, Ill answer you Caz and hopefully set in print for the last time my beliefs, which you and Mike in particular misrepresent constantly;

If everything about the Stride murder had been exactly the same, except that her womb had been taken away, or an apparent attempt had been made to do so, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your thinking would be somewhat different today.

If Elizabeth Stride had had been on her back and had her clothing merely pulled up I might be inclined to include her with the first 2, let alone if mutilations had actually been attempted or performed. The complete absence of any evidence that could lead to a conclusion that her killer sought mutilations is I believe a key to her killers identity, in that he wasnt the "mutilator" at large, as is the issue of whether she was soliciting at that moment or not. That issue may well be central to the killers objectives for all we know. To just assume she was then insinuates that her killer sought her out for the same reasons as the first 2 women, which we can say with some certainty were in fact acting as prostitutes the night they die. But thats not clearly the case is it? Liz could have been killed for any number of reasons that had nothing to do with people needing to kill strangers "working" alone at night.

What I'm getting at is that you don't know the killer of Nichols and Chapman would not have targeted any woman unless he could be 100% sure she was on the game.

Actually I would say that my belief is just that....because only "working" women would take strangers silently back to someplace dark and lonely in that neighborhood, at night. During that Fall. Any woman not working could have been comfortable in the dark with someone they felt they knew...but not a stranger. UNLESS....she had to, she needed to. Polly and Annie needed money for their beds, we have no idea what plans Liz had for the balance of her night. I dont assume she needed to earn 4d, theres no evidence of that. She may have had plans that carried her through the rest of the weekend for all we know.

But let's imagine this same man had been in Berner St, had seen Stride outside the club, and wrongly assumed she was there to find customers - on the basis that we can all make assumptions.

If he was a stranger, and she wasnt working, then she wouldnt have found herself alone in that passage with him unless taken there forcibly.

The killer was alone and unobserved when he committed himself to overpowering her, laying her down and cutting her throat. But what, in your opinion, would have been his window of opportunity to obtain her womb afterwards?

He may have cut her throat while she fell, as he held her from behind with her scarf, so I dont see how we can conclude he "committed" to any particular action, it may have been a knee jerk reaction on his part.

If you believe there would have been no chance of him succeeding and getting away unobserved, wouldn't that seriously undermine your argument that he would have made an attempt regardless, if this was the same man who had recently got away by the skin of his teeth in Hanbury St?

If I believed a serial mutilator sought to mutilate a strange woman, why would I assume that he would attempt to do so with very little prospect of realization? He could easily see a dark yard further back, or he could have found a woman who wasnt near an active club. Liz wasnt the only "prospect" out that night for a serial killer.

In my opinion the main issues between us are...I didnt assume one man killed all Five women before I started studying, I dont assume that all women out at night were soliciting, I dont assume that serial killers who had killed twice in a very particular and similar fashion would then simply kill someone in a very risky location, and I dont assume that Jack the Ripper was the only man capable of committing murder with a knife in East London in the Fall of 1888.

Other than that, we're basically on the same page.

Cheers

[caz]

I dont assume she needed to earn 4d, theres no evidence of that. She may have had plans that carried her through the rest of the weekend for all we know.

Hi Michael,

There's also no evidence that Stride had a bean left to her name when found dead, and no evidence of where her next meal and drink would have come from, let alone bed. We can play 'for all we know', but it gets us nowhere. 'For all we know', after spending her sixpence unwisely earlier in the evening, she now had to resort to her old game of telling some sob story to con her doss money from strangers. Nobody came forward to say they had promised her a job, a place to stay or any financial help.

If he was a stranger, and she wasnt working, then she wouldnt have found herself alone in that passage with him unless taken there forcibly.

Not sure I understand this. You don't believe she was 'working', yet there is no evidence that her killer took her anywhere 'forcibly', and she did find herself alone in that passage with him, suggesting she had no idea he was about to murder her, and also did nothing to make him lash out in anger.

He may have cut her throat while she fell, as he held her from behind with her scarf, so I dont see how we can conclude he "committed" to any particular action, it may have been a knee jerk reaction on his part.

Firstly, what could have caused this knee jerk reaction, given your belief she was with him willingly and unaware of the danger? Secondly, you didn't answer my question about his window of opportunity to successfully obtain her womb if he had previously killed Chapman.

If I believed a serial mutilator sought to mutilate a strange woman, why would I assume that he would attempt to do so with very little prospect of realization?

He made the attempt and succeeded in Hanbury St, but it turned out to be terribly risky and his prospects could not been too good beforehand. He would have been pushing his luck even further in Dutfield's Yard.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In my opinion the main issues between us are...I didnt assume one man killed all Five women before I started studying, I dont assume that all women out at night were soliciting, I dont assume that serial killers who had killed twice in a very particular and similar fashion would then simply kill someone in a very risky location, and I dont assume that Jack the Ripper was the only man capable of committing murder with a knife in East London in the Fall of 1888.

Other than that, we're basically on the same page.

Cheers

Carrying on where I left off...

How do you know what I 'assumed' before I even started studying the case?

When have I ever assumed 'all women' out at night were soliciting? All I have ever said is that the murder victims could have been willing to make a few pence from their killer (not necessarily with sexual services - it's you who is obsessed with the sexual angle here, nobody else), and that their killer could have presumed that to be the case and thought they would be easy prey.

As for 'very risky' locations putting off the man who killed Nichols and Chapman, you've got to be kidding. Every location was very risky, judging by how quickly the bodies were discovered after the killer departed. So much so in Buck's Row that it is your considered opinion that the killer was forced to leave the corpse after opening the abdomen but before he could rummage about for the womb. If he had attacked Nichols just seconds later, he'd have achieved less, perhaps only the initial throat cut before the event that caused him to flee empty handed.

Had that been the case, no doubt you would now be 'assuming' yet another different killer with yet another motive.

I don't assume this man was the only one capable of cutting female throats in that place and time; I allow for every possibility, while favouring some more than others when considering all the circumstances. You, on the other hand, assume this man would only have used his knife in an identical fashion each time, and would have risked being caught in the act just to make sure we would all recognise his handiwork 125 years later. That is patently ridiculous, and shows how little you understand repeat offending.

Love,

Caz
X