Different Killers

[lynn cates]

conflation

Hello Ausgirl.

"I challenge anyone to show me a list of victims from a killer we know about, which does not exhibit similar levels of variation from victim to victim. In many cases, both victims and MO vary far more widely than the murders ascribed to JtR!"

The point is NOT in differences but in similarity. Both Nichols and Chapman showed facial bruising; both had parallel neck cuts; both had skillful mutilations.

The others lacked ALL those.

You conflate WHAT was done with HOW it was done.

Cheers.
LC

[Ausgirl]

Hello Ausgirl. Thanks.

If you claim all were female, I certainly agree. And, although I don't know what counts as "wee hours," they were all out after midnight.

Not sure how much mileage is in that, but you're welcome to it.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,

Whatever.

- Aus

[Michael W Richards]

Lynn,

Whatever.

- Aus

Maybe you should consider the factual points that are being placed before you before you summarily diss people like Lynn, and myself. Since you clearly do not have all the answers, then its only common sense to consider that some other people might have some of them.

Fact: NO MURDERS AFTER THE 2ND CANONICAL WERE CONSIDERED PERFORMED BY SOMEONE KNOWLEDGEABLE AND SKILLED, AND NO MURDERS WITHIN THE REMAINING 3, EXCLUDING PERHAPS KATES,.. OF THE FIVE HAVE ANYTHING IN COMMON WITH THE FIRST 2, USING THE METHOD, VICTIMOLOGY AND APPARENT OBJECTIVES AS THE FILTERS, OTHER THAN THE GEOGRAPHICAL AND HISTORICAL COINCIDENCE.

Ive seen a lot of your "whatever" responses, which for me reveals your youth and your reluctance to learn anything.

Cheers

[Ausgirl]

I'm well and truly open to learning. I just have a thing about people posting inaccurate and consistently insulting crap about -- well, can only assume "me", seeing as these responses are coming immediately after comments I've been making on this subject. Me, and however many other people. Other people can stand up for themselves or not, as they will.

I, however, am not going to respond politely to it. The way you & Lynn have been speaking to people is abysmal and absolutely antithetical to any kind of constructive conversation.

So, "whatever". That's what it gets, from me.

[c.d.]

"Ive seen a lot of your "whatever" responses, which for me reveals your youth and your reluctance to learn anything."

I thought those responses were right on the money and very much called for given the condescending tone of SOME PEOPLE (YES, I CAN TYPE IN CAPS TOO) on these boards.

Don't let them push you around, Ausgirl.

c.d.

[John Wheat]

Similarly, I'd like to know what evidence there is that only one killer was involved--especially in light of Baxter's remarks about a possible imitator.

To Lynn

Am I to conclude there is no evidence of multiple killers? It's certainly not very likely. As I've said before the killer being inebriated to various degrees could quite easily explain supposed differences of MO.

Cheers John

[GregBaron]

Multipliers...

The canon excepting Stride were all unfortunates murdered after midnight with their throats cut and innards ripped, they were all on their backs in missionary sexual positions. The killer escaped unnoticed. Few or no sounds were heard. There is no evidence of any political or conspiratorial reason for the lowest of women to be murdered. All were in nasty Whitechapel in a limited time frame…

It seems to me the onus of motive rests in the court of the multi-crowd…


Greg

[John Wheat]

It seems to me the onus of motive rests in the court of the multi-crowd…

Absolutely Greg the multiple killers crowd should put there money where there mouth is and reveal some evidence. If they have any that is.

Cheers John

[Jon Guy]

thought those responses were right on the money and very much called for given the condescending tone of SOME PEOPLE (YES, I CAN TYPE IN CAPS TOO) on these boards.

Don't let them push you around, Ausgirl.

Well said, CD !!
Ignore the trolls, Ausgirl !!

[chrismasonic]

I do not believe this canonical nonsense...all you can do is attempt to identify the likely killers of each victim and the puzzle solves itself...

it's likely individual murders have been solved but some expert has discounted this because the culprit doesn't fit with the other crimes...

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

All fair points. But what does that say about the tired old nonsense of victimology? Why not say, They were all women?

Or better, why not plead ignorance of motive/s?

Cheers.
LC

Victimology as a toll in an of itself is fairly useless except in extreme cases. So since we aren't going to save lives at this point by nailing down the victimology, we won't be using it as a tool to warn people.

But that doesn't make it useless, or nonsense. At this point in this series of crimes, we can use it for one of two reasons. We can use it to assign victims to a single killer, or we can use it to start pinning down motive.

We are ignorant of motive. No one can say otherwise. Never caught the guy(s), never asked the question, we have no clue. And we have no idea why he killed who he killed. We don't know what he was looking for. And I will never say otherwise.

If we assume that one killer murdered five women, (and we can make other assumptions as well) then we look at the women we think he killed. And we realize that he has a type. We know that the first murders are more indicative of that type than later ones. When a person goes from fantasizing to killing, it's a big step. Their first murder is going to be as close to the fantasy as they can mange. Once they have killed a few times, the murder becomes more important than the type, so variety starts to creep in. The first murder is an extremely emotional act. Throwing up afterwards is not uncommon. The second murder should be textbook. They know what they got wrong the first time, they know what they want to do, what they are getting into.

If we accept the c5 as the murder pool (and I know you don't so adjust it to your own requirements), then we see a fairly normal progression from first to last. Nichols and Chapman would be the best examples of what he was looking for. Kelly may not fit the type as well, but her murder offers opportunities the others did not. After a few killings, the murderer can compromise.

The reason we know that he wasn't just looking for women is because he wasn't killing just women. He was killing women who were going with him to a second location. And he had a way of getting them there, which after the Chapman murder would have been difficult. He isn't breaking into homes. He isn't attacking shop girls on their way to work. He approaches a woman. He has her take him somewhere private. And what kind of woman meets a man, whether for the first time or not, and goes with him to place on the streets where they won't be seen? What would motivate her to do that? Even if they were friends, what could he possibly want from her that she can't do on a relatively busy street?

He was looking for prostitutes. And he probably even set them up so that even if they weren't prostitutes at that time, the money was enough to give in at least once. Now this doesn't mean he has a burning hatred for prostitutes. It means he knows he can get a prostitute alone, and would have a hell of a time getting a housewife alone. I mean, he might hate prostitutes, but we can't learn that from this. We do learn that he has a level of sophistication for knowing the best way to get what he wants. And we know from looking at Nichols and Chapman that those two women match his fantasy the best. Neither were considered especially lovely women, they were not sex symbols, they did not represent everything he couldn't have like say, Kemper and his co-eds. So this likely wasn't a sex thing (I mean, it's always a little bit of a sex thing). He was likely not drooling over these two women. Which makes it more likely that this was either a substitution thing (probably anger), or a mission oriented thing.

If he was killing substitutes, the murders may have ended simply because he killed the real target, or she simply died. If it was mission oriented, then he had a concrete reason for doing what he did. And if we accept that he had a reason, and that reason had to do with the first two victims, then we can nail down exactly what he was looking for. And it may be something we otherwise couldn't see because there are too many variables. But it's always been more than their sex. it's not enough to say he just wanted women. He was looking for a type, for whatever reason. Prostitutes may have been the easiest to kill, but he wasn't going to kill someone who didn't fit what he needed. Or there would have been a body a day.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

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.

I've read that after Chapman, the streets were deserted by women and heavily patrolled in the late night early morning.

IF jack killed the next three, it makes sense that he had to hunt earlier. And it proved to be more risky.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Here's how I see it boys and girls...




Martha Tabram – 2 PTSD soldiers





Greg

What could possibly trigger a PTSD episode on two soldiers at the same time?

[Michael W Richards]

The canon excepting Stride were all unfortunates murdered after midnight with their throats cut and innards ripped, they were all on their backs in missionary sexual positions. The killer escaped unnoticed. Few or no sounds were heard. There is no evidence of any political or conspiratorial reason for the lowest of women to be murdered. All were in nasty Whitechapel in a limited time frame…

It seems to me the onus of motive rests in the court of the multi-crowd…


Greg

Well since you started with the "Canon excluding Stride", as the thread authors premise began, then perhaps you might understand why some of us haven't thrown a blanket over 5 women and called it a series.

To Aus, before I respond to your victimology lecture, I find it interesting that for many years here I received the shout downs from the senior members about some of my ideas and responded about as rudely as you do. That being said, I see little to compare with the logic and reason that was used back then.

"Mary Kelly was indeed a good bit younger and prettier, but who knows, she might have fit the ideal in some other, less tangible way - the sound of her voice, the way she wore her hair. In any case, it was out with the entrails, wasn't it, and he could 'complete' (or 'exhaust') his desire to mutilate with unprecedented freedom."

You see the motivations poetically do you, lovely sentiments for a killer, but the evidence that began this series suggests that a stranger used the womens own weakness, the need to earn money on the street, to lure or follow them to a place where he could kill them with 2 extremely deep throat cuts and then proceed to attack their abdominal area. Mary Kelly was younger by almost half their ages, far more attractive, and she was indoors in her sleeping attire in bed, .... the abdominal area cannot be seen as the focal point of those mutilations due to the variety of cuts that likely took longer than a single abdominal extraction in the dark would.

No-one but you used the terms cookie-cutter, or exact to point out that there are significant differences in the murders. Its clear that within the evidence that it is the case. Then you announce your challenge for anyone to show you a list of victims by a killer as you way of explaining these differences off.....like you have a list of victims by one man to begin with that makes the comparison valid. Nonsense. You have 5 women dead and 1 assumed killer, and if assumptions are your specialty, so be it. Better to assume than to do any hard work...like finding a common thread to connect the five beyond mere geography and historical context.

I gather you believe that women as victims and throat cuts are enough to group these murders. And I suppose you believe that only 1 person in the East End of London at the time was capable of, and driven to, those sorts of acts. So.... men who dynamite innocent children were incapable of it?, or a man who cuts limbs off his victims and disposes of the Torsos?, or a man who kills and buries the bodies of his wife and children?, or a man who spent years in prison for attacking and killing prostitutes with a knife?, or someone who cuts a child in half and stuffs him in a barrel?, ...all of these people and more were within reach of Whitechapel at that time. So do we pick one of the maniacs, or assume as is your preference that one was sicker than the others? Only 1 could have done it?

Preposterous as it looks on paper.

Lots of men in that area could kill, some did, and anyone with a knife could have killed victim 3 in the Canon.

Here are some other unsolved murders of the period;

"It was the boast of Mr. Howard Vincent, at the time he was head of the Criminal Investigation Department, that London is the safest city in the world; and so it would seem to be - for the assassin. The undiscovered murders of recent years make a long list.

Passing over the murder of Mrs. Squires and her daughter in their shop at Hoxton in broad daylight; the killing of Jane Maria Clousen in Kidbrook-lane, near Eltham; the murder of the housekeeper to Bevingtons, of Cannon-street, we come to, perhaps, the best remembered and most sensational of the mysterious crimes of the past. On the morning of Christmas-day, 1872, Harriet Buswell was discovered with her throat cut. She was a ballet-girl, employed at the Alhambra, and had been accompanied to her home, 12, Great Coram-street, by a "gentleman," supposed to have been a German, who on the way purchased some apples, one of which was left in the room, and bore the impression of his teeth. This half-eaten apple was the sole clue to the murderer, who was never found. A German clergyman named Hessel was arrested at Ramsgate on suspicion three weeks after the murder, but a protracted magisterial investigation resulted in his complete acquittal.

-Mrs. Samuel was brutally done to death at her house in Burton-crescent, and a few doors further up Annie Yeats was murdered under precisely similar circumstances to those attending the death of Harriet Buswell.

-Miss Hacker was found dead in a coal-cellar in the house of one Sebastian Bashendorff, in Euston-square, and Hannah Dobbs was tried, but acquitted. An almost identical case happened in Harley-street. In this case the victim was unknown.

-Another unknown woman was discovered lying in Burdett-road, Bow, murdered.

-Mrs. Reville, a butcher's wife, of Slough, was found sitting in a chair with her throat cut, but no one was apprehended.

-Then there was the murder of an unfortunate in her home near Pye-street, Westminster. A rough fellow was known to have gone home with her, and he left an old and dirty neckerchief behind, but he was never found.

-Mrs. Samuel was killed with impunity in the Kentish Town Dairy.

-The murderer of Miss Clark, who was found at the foot of the stairs in her house, George-street, Marylebone, has gone unpunished.

Besides these there are the cases in which the victims have been men. A grocer's assistant was stabbed to death in the Walworth-road by a man who was stealing a pound of tea from a cart. The act was committed in the sight of a number of people, but the man got away, and to this day has not been captured. Mr. Tower, returning from midnight service on New Year's eve was found in the Stoke Newington reservoir. The police failing to get the faintest clue adopted the theory of suicide, but could get nothing to substantiate it. On 29 March 1884, E. J. Perkins, a clerk in a City office at 2, Arthur-street West, was murdered and from Saturday till Monday his body lay in a cellar in the basement of the building. Lieutenant Roper was shot at the top of the barrack stairs at Chatham, and, though Percy Lefroy Mapleton, who was hanged for the murder of Mr. Gould on the Brighton Railway, accused himself of the murder, it was proved that he could have had no connection with the lieutenant's death. Urban Napoleon Stanger, the baker, of Whitechapel, who vanished so mysteriously, we pass over. The list, though incomplete, is ghastly enough."

Why not assign all these murders of women by knife to the same killer? At least be consistent.

[Harry D]

What happened to Nichols & Chapman's killer?

What happened to Stride's killer?

What happened to Eddowes' killer?

What happened to Kelly's killer?

If we believe Lynn & Michael, we have potentially FOUR different knife-wielding murderers within three months operating in the same small, localized area. Why did they all start and subsequently stop around the same time? If Eddowes & Kelly were murdered by different hands, where is the sign of escalation? It's hard to believe that either of these two murders were the killer's first. What evidence do we have for other murders building up to these, if not C1 & C2? These are all valid questions which need to be accounted for if anyone wants the multiple-killer theory to be taken seriously.