Different Killers

[Batman]

Solved by way of sheep

I should have known! Anyone having a delusion they where butchering a sheep and not a person like Annie Chapman would position its hoof on its breast and spread its hind legs in its natural mating position.

Mark OP [SOLVED] and let's all switch to solving the Zodiac instead.

[lynn cates]

on experts

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Thought we were on the same wavelength.

I recall a few months back when an "expert" had solved the case by DNA. Until, of course, we found he'd made a bloody fool of himself and his master by being unable to read a data base, an error message, and putting the decimal incorrectly in a division problem.

Of course, he was a "biologist." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Spotty]

Hello Spotty. Thanks.

"Does that mean that referencing any peer-reviewed journal article written by a person in a position of authority should be considered fallacious?"

Not at all. The idea is that you seek an opinion from an expert. That is good. BUT believing something because it is from an expert?--not so good.

"I agree that technically you are correct about the way I presented my opinion, but I don't consider my support of this article to be based on a fallacy."

So you actually thought for yourself? Then, no fallacy.

See the difference?

Cheers.
LC

Yes of course I thought for myself, this whole issue is due to me being too glib in my first post and assuming that others would realise that "if he says it, it's good enough for me", was a form of hyperbole. FWIW I always think for myself I only posted in this thread because of the article linked and my appreciation of reading Keppel's conclusions about JtR, since I had often wondered what they might consist of.
Cheers

Ps my first question was facetious

[lynn cates]

Druitt

Hello Spotty. Thanks.

Actually, in a weak moment, many of us do the same. I recall that, back in my Druitt days (when I accepted all that rot about a sexual serial killer), I made that VERY claim about Mac. I have since matured.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Spotty. Thanks.

Actually, in a weak moment, many of us do the same. I recall that, back in my Druitt days (when I accepted all that rot about a sexual serial killer), I made that VERY claim about Mac. I have since matured.

Cheers.
LC

Matured into someone who thinks a butcher in the thrawls of a delusion that he was killing a sheep and not Chapman put its hoof on its breast and spread it legs open in the sheeps natural mating position.

Nothing sexual about that one little bit.

,,, and of course there is zero evidence from the historical record that serial killers who mutilate sexual organs are doing something sexual despite the fact that people who escape them tend to claim the opposite. Ignore them. They are just lying for the media attention.

[Spotty]

Hello Spotty. Thanks.

Actually, in a weak moment, many of us do the same. I recall that, back in my Druitt days (when I accepted all that rot about a sexual serial killer), I made that VERY claim about Mac. I have since matured.

Cheers.
LC

Oh my golly gosh, I hope that I don't mature into a snide, arrogant ruler of an internet message board

[lynn cates]

no worries

Hello Spotty. Thanks.

You shan't. You are far too intelligent.

Less confident of others on this thread, though.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Personally I think Issenschmidt is a completely hopeless candidate for any of the murders. I mean, what does his candidacy really amount to: that because he was mentally ill, with some indistinct condition, resulting in him being stereotyped as "the mad pork butcher" then he's an ideal suspect in the Nichols and Chapman murder cases?

I mean, where is the evidence that he was actually violent towards anyone? Much of what we know about him seems to be based on little more than gossip, and even his own wife stated that "I don't think my husband would injure anyone but me."

It's now argued that he must have been deranged and attacked Nichols and Chapman purely on impulse. Of course, there are all sorts of problems with this theory, not least because it implies a highly disorganized killer. However, both the Nichols and Chapman murders suggest at least some degree of planning and organisation.

Thus, they both probably had their throats cut when they were on the ground, enabling their killer to avoid arterial spray. Their murderer was also able to act quickly and effectively without drawing attention to himself. In the case of Chapman at least it appears that she was approached by her killer whist soliciting and then agreed to go with him to Hanbury Street, presumably after money was handed over, for the purposes of sex. But if she was killed by a deranged murderer, acting on impulse, how did he manage to restrain himself until they were unseen by witnesses? Why not launch into an attack the moment he came across her? Why enter into a transaction with a prostitute in the first place?

Moreover, in both the Nichols and Chapman murders the killer was able to act not just quickly and effectively he was also able to leave the murder scene without attracting any sort of suspicion whatsoever; a particular problem if you consider the likely time of the Chapman murder as many locals were probably leaving for work.

And let's just reflect on this for a moment. Chapman's body was horribly mutilated: her intestines were completely severed and removed; the uterus, upper portion of the vagina, and most of the bladder were also removed, and most likely taken away by the killer. And, according to Dr Philips at least, the killer exhibited a high degree of anatomical skill: hardly sounds like a deranged mad man, acting on impulse in the throes of some terrible hallucination does it, pork butcher or not?

And wouldn't you have expected such a killer to be absolutely covered in blood and gore? Wouldn't you have thought he would attract serious attention to himself? And yet not a single witness saw anything remotely suspicious in the immediate aftermath of the crime. Why? Could it be that the killer took significant precautions, such as wearing a long coat, for example? And doesn't this suggest evidence of strategic thinking? What it manifestly does not indicate re the actions of some deranged mad man who probably had know recollection of what he'd just done.

Then, of course, there's the evidence of Mrs Fiddymont et al. Well even setting aside the fact that Issenschmidt was never positively identified, even to the extent of the kind of dubious identification we have with Kosminski, what does this "evidence" amount to? That a suspect seemed to be acting suspiciously? Even if we assume that the man was Issenschmidt- a big "if"- the only concrete evidence seems to be that he had a few blood spots on the back of his right hand. I mean, this is hardly an indication that the man had recently eviscerated somebody! And Issenschmidt was a pork butcher, so why is having a few spots of blood on his hand necessarily suspicious anyway?

In order to address these difficulties the argument seems to run along the lines that he acted completely on impulse but, maybe, in some indistinct way, that I can't quite put my finger on, he did have some deeper, perhaps unconscious, but then again perhaps not, understanding of what he'd done, at least to the extent of demonstrating some, or perhaps on further refection quite a lot, of organizational skills!

In al honesty I think there's about as much chance that Nichols and Chapman were both killed by Mrs Fiddymont!

[GregBaron]

And then there were four...

Good one John G. and never underestimate Mrs. Fiddymont, there were rumors that she was cruel and unusual...

Thanks Lynn...

Ever wonder why her things were rifled?--dumped on the ground?

Not really.......my assumption is that the murderer was also a petty thief - likely another poor denizen of Whitechapel...

1. Knowledge that the perpetrator of the first two killings were safely caged.

2. A nameless unknown entity would be blamed for Kate.

I accept this reasoning Lynn although I find it farfetched...

As for the thread premise............there are certainly different killers outside the canon and many are willing to drop Stride and even Tabram as one-off's.............my intuition still tells me the remaining big four were by the same evil hand...



Greg

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby. Thanks.

"Polly and Annie were accidental? What does that mean?"

It means that Jacob never intended to kill. When he asked them for money (everything belonged to him--see testimony and chart) and was refused, he lashed out by trying to strangle--just as he did his wife.

The cutting was likely perpetrated upon an imaginary sheep. Recall--he was at the worst phase of his delusions about this time.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn
several questions:

If Issenschmidt thought the women were sheep, why would he ask a sheep for money?

If he thought chapman was a sheep to be butchered, why just remove and take away the uterus?

If he thought he was butchering sheep, and like you point out-he thought "everything belonged to him"- why leave Nichols and Chapmans bodies before finishing, and why wait until he was alone with chapman before he attacked her? Doesn't this seem to indicate he knew what he was doing was wrong?

[John G]

Thanks Lynn
several questions:

If Issenschmidt thought the women were sheep, why would he ask a sheep for money?

If he thought chapman was a sheep to be butchered, why just remove and take away the uterus?

If he thought he was butchering sheep, and like you point out-he thought "everything belonged to him"- why leave Nichols and Chapmans bodies before finishing, and why wait until he was alone with chapman before he attacked her? Doesn't this seem to indicate he knew what he was doing was wrong?

Hi Abby,

Another important point is why would he be asking "them" for money? Surely, considering Polly and Annie's profession, it would be the other way round. And assuming Annie would require payment, or would at least inform the client that payment would be required for her services, before agreeing to go to 29 Hanbury Street, why didn't he strike out at this point? The same, of course, goes for Polly. Moreover, assuming he did render payment, on what basis would that be, considering he believed all the money in the world belonged to him?

[John Wheat]

I believe Lynn

Hi Chris

Just wondering how extensively you believe Lynn. Do you believe Issenschmidt committed the first two murders as Lynn does?

Cheers John

[lynn cates]

charts

Hello John. Thanks.

Violent? Have you read his charts? Have you read my discussion of his case with ALL the evidence?

After that, we'll talk.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Kelly girl

Hello Greg. Thanks.

And Kelly?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

J I answers

Hello Abby. Thanks.

"If Isenschmid thought the women were sheep, why would he ask a sheep for money?"

Because his delusions changed RAPIDLY. (See charts.)

"If he thought Chapman was a sheep to be butchered, why just remove and take away the uterus?"

Haven't the foggiest. But, again, his delusions were bizarre.

"If he thought he was butchering sheep, and like you point out-he thought "everything belonged to him"- why leave Nichols and Chapman's bodies before finishing, and why wait until he was alone with Chapman before he attacked her?"

Well, look at Long's story. He was talking loudly and asking, "Will you?" As I said in the essay, he may have been asking for money. Annie, who was "out of it," misunderstood. No reason to strike. BUT, when they reached the backyard and she clearly refused him the money, ("no.") that would be frustrating and he would begin to strangle her--like his wife in an analogous situation.

All in the essay.

Cheers.
LC