Different Killers

[c.d.]

Hello CD.

"So this idea of offering evidence to show that Liz was not soliciting that night and concluding therefore that she could not have been a Ripper victim is pretty much a nonstarter."

Actually I agree. But it also places "victimology" firmly in the dustbin--unless, of course, one means ONLY that all were female.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by victimology.

c.d.

[chrismasonic]

a radius of one square mile is incorrect...

[John Wheat]

Hello, Lynn.

Problem is when someone is so entrenched in a certain belief, then no amount of evidence will ever change their mind.

There was a sudden explosion of violence in the Autumn of 1888, women were having their throats cut and in most cases their entrails removed. This happened over a radius of one square mile. Then they stopped as suddenly as they began. If we have two or three killers on the loose, we need to account for them. Why did they all stop around the same time? And if they didn't, what evidence is there to show it?

To Lynn/chrismasonic

Perhaps Harry should have said in a comparatively small area of London rather than a square mile. However the rest of his post stands. I would like to know what evidence there is that there were two or three killers on the loose?

Cheers John

[FrankO]

And regarding the fact that some were on their backs, some on the side, etc: surely, then, talk of posing is otiose?

Some on the side? Why should the majestic plural be used for Stride, Lynn?

[Errata]

Hello CD.

"So this idea of offering evidence to show that Liz was not soliciting that night and concluding therefore that she could not have been a Ripper victim is pretty much a nonstarter."

Actually I agree. But it also places "victimology" firmly in the dustbin--unless, of course, one means ONLY that all were female.

Cheers.
LC

The assumption that if they were not soliciting the night he killed them then he was not looking for prostitutes is a easily broken theory. It depends on some very specific assumptions.

What if he knew these women, at least on sight? What if he had seen them soliciting a month earlier? A year earlier? What if he caught them on a bad night and offered them a good amount of money. Right when they couldn't afford to pass it up? What if he heard that these women were prostitutes, and that was proof enough for him? What if he assumed any woman out that time of night was a prostitute? What if aliens told him they were prostitutes? Who says that his hunt for prostitutes was remotely logical and based on fact?

On the other hand, four out of five women went with him to a private location. For a reason. I mean, maybe Nichols might have gone with him for some lame reason, because what's the worst that can happen? But Eddowes knew what the worst was. She's not going off with a man without a good reason. So what's the reason? What is he doing to convince these women to with him? Does he tell them that he has puppies? Does he say that he is going to save their souls? Why does that have to be in an out of the way square, a backyard? If he offers them money for sex, and they accept, that explains some things. And while that technically makes you a prostitute, it doesn't mean that is something you do all the time. And it doesn't mean you were soliciting.

And anyway, just because a guy is shooting rabbits doesn't mean he isn't hunting deer. His intentions and your reality have nothing to with each other. And just because I haven't sunk a shot since 1989 doesn't mean I'm not playing basketball. I'm just doing it badly.

[Ausgirl]

Hello Ausgirl. Thanks.

I agree about solicitation. But if OUR speculation is correct, surely there is NO place to dredge up the old chestnut about victimology?

And regarding the fact that some were on their backs, some on the side, etc: surely, then, talk of posing is otiose?

But I entirely agree about discussing all the above--which I aim to do.

Cheers.
LC

The one on her side is the ONLY one I seriously doubt was a Ripper victim, and for other reasons.

Not sure who you mean by "OUR". But as for victimology --- minus that odd woman out, Stride, there's a lot of physical likeness between the four (who I think were by the same hand, obviously) all were poor, all were known to like a drink/had been drinking and all were out in the wee hours. So you can pooh pooh victimology all you like, but I can see some merit in it. If we minus Stride. Which I think we probably ought to.

[J6123]

Stride looks like a botched Ripper attack to me, although it can't be proved without any shadow of doubt.

I say botched, maybe half-botched, because he did kill her, but obviously he didn't get to rip her open, maybe cause he was disturbed. There's even a possibility he was actually disturbed whilst attacking her by a Jewish man who had quietly entered the street, who saw the attack, then ran off and told the police about it later

People don't want to believe that though, because they want the Ripper to be silent and invisible, a charismatic genius in a top hat who sweet-talked these women to their graves. Or, in some cases, they want him to be 4 people.

[Ausgirl]

Stride's the one of the canonical five that to me stands out as most likely done by another hand.

The question of the murders being so close in time and distance is a bump in that road, but then, it could be good ol' coincidence - Stride simply happened to meet someone who hated her enough to kill her, on that same night as the Ripper had a successful hunt. I don't see much to suggest otherwise, except both women were poor and out late. But then, a lot of women probably were. Both woman had cut throats- but cut throats weren't that unusual, going by the papers it was a popular murder technique, right up there with poisoning (for a different type of killer, of course).

The other four victims were all plump/well-built, darker of hair, probably more drunk, and displayed an escalation of mutilation in their wounds. Stride was taller, thinner, fair, and just had her throat cut, and was found on her side. She significantly -doesn't- fit the pattern.

[RockySullivan]

They did - the "Torso Murderer" and Jack. Of course you might like to say Jack was the "Torso Murderer" but then why was he killing on land while "Torso" used the Thames?

Jeff

Don't forget Pinchin st torso or the Whitehall one. Those were on land, the first under a railway arch and whitehall in the cellar.

[J6123]

Stride's the one of the canonical five that to me stands out as most likely done by another hand.

The question of the murders being so close in time and distance is a bump in that road

A pretty big one. One big enough to make you get out, shake your head for a bit, then get back in and have to drive around completely.

[Ausgirl]

A pretty big one. One big enough to make you get out, shake your head for a bit, then get back in and have to drive around completely.

Can't quite see it, myself. But I appreciate that others do.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think 2 murders in London on the same night both involving knives is any evidence of the same killer...

Lynn applauded an earlier statement you made, Ill applaud this one. Youre absolutely correct.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

What are the odds of having two lunatics killing people in such a small area?

How many murderers do we know were in and around that area at the very time the murders were committed? Im not just talking about Deeming or Chapman or Vasiliev, we also have the Torso killer, we have this Leather Apron who many believe.. I believe erroneously.. was Leather Apron, we have Martha Tabrams killer, we have the killers of Emma, we have Ada, and we have bustling streets with no shortage of thieves, anarchists and a plethora of "low men" that could easily be seen as threats to single women.

Its naïve to imagine the streets were left to this Jack fellow for over 2 months, clearly, other dangerous folks were also about.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

I read somewhere, "Another reason why Stride probably wasn't a Ripper victim is because she was killed at an earlier time than the others..."

Hang on a second, wasn't Eddowes also killed at an earlier time than the others? Doesn't that only go to strengthen the already fairly strong link between the Stride and Eddowes murders?

Nice example of somebody unwittingly giving their own theory a kick in the nads.

The ONLY way to determine who likely killed any of them is to exhaustively search for possible motives for each murder, not throw and assumptive blanket over all of them.

The time, the weapon, the throat cuts were not highly unusual, ....but double throat cuts and abdominal mutilations and extractions are. And publicly displayed eviscerated corpses also were. So that includes the Torsos.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

The one on her side is the ONLY one I seriously doubt was a Ripper victim, and for other reasons.

Not sure who you mean by "OUR". But as for victimology --- minus that odd woman out, Stride, there's a lot of physical likeness between the four (who I think were by the same hand, obviously) all were poor, all were known to like a drink/had been drinking and all were out in the wee hours. So you can pooh pooh victimology all you like, but I can see some merit in it. If we minus Stride. Which I think we probably ought to.

There is in fact a great dissimilarity between the first 2 murdered women and Mary Kelly in terms of likeness...Mary was young enough to be either of their daughters, and she is generally accepted to have been an attractive young lady. Plus there are situational differences between C1-C2 and all the rest of the "Canonical Group", in that we can only say with integrity that Polly and Annie were soliciting at the time.

Cheers