Different Killers

[John Wheat]

But what of Polly and Annie, later; and Kate, later?

Hi Lynn

I wouldn't profess to know the Rippers drinking schedule.

Cheers John

[lynn cates]

inebriation

Hello John. Thanks.

Fair enough. And perhaps inebriation is irrelevant, after all?

Cheers.
LC

[John Wheat]

Hi Lynn

I would say inebriation is only irrelevant if the Ripper didn't drink on any of the nights in question.

Cheers John

[lynn cates]

depends

Hello John. Thanks.

Quite. And it depends whether or not there WAS a ripper.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"JtR was forensically aware."

Indeed?

"The lack of prints . . ."

you are in jest, of course?

"Nobody has ever argued that the murders where done skillfully by someone with medical skill. What the argument actually is - is that within the random slashing there is evidence that this at times get replaced by actual aquired medical skill which usually means organ removal in a certain way indicating skill."

Actually, the argument, made by Baxter--rightly or wrongly--is that the mutilations, THEMSELVES, were skillful on Polly and Annie but NOT on Kate.

What shall we make of this? Perhaps nothing. But PLEASE get the argument straight.

Cheers.
LC

JtR didn't leave any bloody footprints. That is what I mean by prints in 1888. He likely never got much blood on himself either.

I don't agree with your interpretation. The medical skill wasn't attributed to all the wounds. There was signs of it in places, not throughout. Brown was the city pathologist for Eddowes. Philips was there. Brown suggested medical knowledge but this was struck from the inquest. Brown himself in latter life figured a medical student for the culpret. It is Bond who gives the canonical 5.

[John Wheat]

Quite. And it depends whether or not there WAS a ripper.

Hi Lynn

True. I believe there was a Ripper and you believe there were three different killers. We've been down this road before. Respectfully I don't wish to go down it again.

Cheers John

[Errata]

With the greatest respect, I'm going to eyeball this a while.

Sure thing. It's only an impression I have. I am totally willing to be wrong. But there is something different about the throat wound, and a different angle could account for that.

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Yet Baxter's words are that the mutilations of the first two were skilful.

Bond? Well, he saw ONE.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

wie Sie wollen

Hello John. Thanks.

"I believe there was a Ripper and you believe there were three different killers. We've been down this road before. Respectfully I don't wish to go down it again."

Just as you wish.

Cheers.
LC

[chrismasonic]

I believe Lynn

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

JtR didn't leave any bloody footprints. That is what I mean by prints in 1888. He likely never got much blood on himself either.

I don't agree with your interpretation. The medical skill wasn't attributed to all the wounds. There was signs of it in places, not throughout. Brown was the city pathologist for Eddowes. Philips was there. Brown suggested medical knowledge but this was struck from the inquest. Brown himself in latter life figured a medical student for the culpret. It is Bond who gives the canonical 5.

Phillips stated that the only reason we didn't see the skill in evidence throughout the majority of Annies wounds was likely due to haste.

The point Lynn is making, and its the only valid point being made in the past number of posts, is that there was within the Canonical Five at least 2 women who were cut up by someone who knew how to use a knife and where he needed to use it. The first 2 victims.

In fact...as has been said and ignored by almost everyone making an argument about the skill and knowledge issue...the ONLY time in the history of the investigations past and present that the officials sought out medical practitioners and students of same profession was immediately after Annies murder. That of course ended when a woman was killed without the need for any skill or knowledge and a second one was killed the same night by someone without either. Their inclusion into a "canonical" group effectively ruined the chance that they would ever solve any of these...because most people started assuming a "group by one" anyway, including officials.

The problem with that last bit is that many of the officials were men who were trained to misdirect, to lie, and to confiscate as part of their primary mandates...intelligence work.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Have the people invoking more than one 'Ripper' factored in the unlikeliness of two MO-sharing prostitute-killing postmortem-mutilating sexual serial killers operating in the same small area at the same time, who also both stopped killing at the same time?

And have the people presuming that Liz Strides murder evidence fits with the unsolved murders that preceded her, without any post-mortem mutilations or even a second cut, considered that the Unsolved murders file does not end with Mary Kelly?

Cheers

[Harry D]

But Michael, even you have conceded that we could attribute at least three of the murders to one man (C1, C2 & C4). Technically that means we have a serial killer worthy of the Ripper mantle, no?

[Michael W Richards]

But Michael, even you have conceded that we could attribute at least three of the murders to one man (C1, C2 & C4). Technically that means we have a serial killer worthy of the Ripper mantle, no?

No. we would have someone who just qualifies to be called "serial" Harry, and this Ripper character seems to be legendary despite that small number of murders. There are, and have been , far worse murder sprees in the last century or so, don't you agree? Jacks run must be put into that context I think...even if one man killed 3 and mutilated them, how is that any worse than any other mass murderer?

Yet...this myth draws far more people to it than they do. Why? Because of the sensationalization of the cases, not the amount of victims nor the way they were killed.

That's one reason why I fight back against the dogma, because its clear that Jack is a bit player in the monster game, at best.

Cheers