Jack the Ripper: Man or Myth?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pinkmoon
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello Jason. Thanks.

    Why would such a second killer--if he existed--be a lunatic? Why not just a cold blooded killer?

    Cheers.
    LC
    The murder of poor Mary went far beyond simple murder in fact I think our killer only stopped when he could find nothing else to do with the body.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello CD. Thanks.

    Although I have said this about a thousand times, here goes one thousand one.

    It is NOT a matter of someone looking for amusement and who then begins killing. It is, rather, a matter of someone who wishes to kill and use another as a cover.

    Cheers.
    LC
    Hello Lynn,

    To which I am always forced to reply a cover for whom? I know you have a favorite crazed individual but overall if the police didn't know who was doing the killings then trying to pass the blame on to another individual really doesn't seem necessary.

    Also, my original point is still valid regardless of a cover theory. It wasn't just the killing that was required but mutilation as well. I am not sure that it is a given that even if someone is a killer that they have the stomach to rip out intestines even if it is required as part of the cover.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    cold blooded killer

    Hello Jason. Thanks.

    Why would such a second killer--if he existed--be a lunatic? Why not just a cold blooded killer?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    1001

    Hello CD. Thanks.

    Although I have said this about a thousand times, here goes one thousand one.

    It is NOT a matter of someone looking for amusement and who then begins killing. It is, rather, a matter of someone who wishes to kill and use another as a cover.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    Baxter

    Hello Harry. Thanks.

    Unfortunately, for that theory, Kate's inclusion was doubted, almost from the beginning.

    Where do you suppose Baxter got his information?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Hello Pinkmoon,

    That question has been debated numerous times. Those who favor multiple killers will say that regardless of the odds if it happened then no matter what the odds the question of probability has been rendered moot.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • pinkmoon
    replied
    I wonder what the actual odds are of having to like minded lunatics in the same area at the same time doing the same thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello Harry.

    "I don't understand the need to complicate matters by introducing a copycat murderer, who now needs to be accounted for, instead of considering the perceived differences in circumstances between the two kills."

    The need is to address Baxter's remarks at inquest that Kate was possibly the work of an imitator.

    Cheers.
    LC
    The problem is that all imitators are equal but some are more equal than others. I can see imitation and copycats if it involved throwing stones threw a church window or a certain style of graffiti or hairstyle but I just can't imagine somebody reading about the murders and thinking "you know, cutting a woman's throat and ripping out her internal organs would be kind of cool. I think I might give that a try."

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    G'day, Lynn.

    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    The need is to address Baxter's remarks at inquest that Kate was possibly the work of an imitator.
    If Eddowes had been accepted as the Ripper's work, this would've disproved Baxter's little theory about the mad doctor collecting uteri. It seems to me that he was obviously trying to separate Eddowes murder from the others in order to save face.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    imitator

    Hello Harry.

    "I don't understand the need to complicate matters by introducing a copycat murderer, who now needs to be accounted for, instead of considering the perceived differences in circumstances between the two kills."

    The need is to address Baxter's remarks at inquest that Kate was possibly the work of an imitator.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    reproduction

    Hello Kensei. Thanks.

    Well, if one is intentionally trying to reproduce something . . .

    If they were the same, why were the cuts unskilful in Kate's case?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Real, in the sense that there were at least three victims, likely four, and possibly five, who all fell to the same hand.
    I assume c.d. was talking about Turnbull's (crackpot) theory being 'real', i.e. not a wind-up.

    Originally posted by kensei View Post
    Annie and Kate both had their intestines lifted out and tossed over their right shoulders. How likely is it that that was done by two different people?
    It begins!

    True enough. Eddowes' abdominal wounds were more haphazard than Chapman's, but the actual disembowelment was no less skilled. I don't understand the need to complicate matters by introducing a copycat murderer, who now needs to be accounted for, instead of considering the perceived differences in circumstances between the two kills. For instance, if Jack had been fumbling with the added layers of Eddowes' clothing that night, this could easily explain why the mutilations were sloppier than before.

    Leave a comment:


  • pinkmoon
    replied
    The work of a very disturbed individual who probably had some basic knowledge of anatomy not necessarily local who snuffed it very shortly after last murder or was locked up and didn't own a shawl.

    Leave a comment:


  • kensei
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello Harry. Thanks for starting this thread.

    You are right that I don't see all by the same hand. My point of departure is that:

    1. Polly and Annie were a series of two.

    2. Kate was a TRUE copycat.

    Other than that, I am quite flexible. In particular, I am excited about Tom Wescott's work on the earlier murders and the notion of a violent thug. Even better if he were associated with a brothel.

    Cheers.
    LC
    Annie and Kate both had their intestines lifted out and tossed over their right shoulders. How likely is it that that was done by two different people?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mayerling
    replied
    Although I think it is one killer (due to the closeness of the dates, and the crescendo of increasingly horrifying mutilations) I am not unaware that it could be simply a set of five or more separately committed murders. Many of the JFK Conspiracy theories feel the killing of Police Officer J. P. Tippett (supposedly committed by Lee Harvey Oswald) was actually not committed by the same party who murdered JFK (obviously such a theory is predicated on the assumption that Oswald was not the President's assassin, nor connected to the assassination). So yes, I could see a similar view with the Ripper killings.

    Jeff

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X