Does this hold for the Ripper

[etenguy]

"Overall, serial killers do not know their victims because if they did, they’d be easy to trace. “On occasion, an early victim of a serial killer is someone they know well who is very easy to access. Most of the time serial killers are smart enough to make sure it isn’t too easy to connect the dots…A stranger homicide is the safest bet.” (Brown 79-80) Serial killers take their time to select their victims. They get acquainted with them. And when they least expect it, the serial killer strikes." (serialkillersvictimschoosing.wikispaces.com)

Do you think this holds for the Ripper - did the Ripper get acquainted with his victims?

[ChrisGeorge]

"Overall, serial killers do not know their victims because if they did, they’d be easy to trace. “On occasion, an early victim of a serial killer is someone they know well who is very easy to access. Most of the time serial killers are smart enough to make sure it isn’t too easy to connect the dots…A stranger homicide is the safest bet.” (Brown 79-80) Serial killers take their time to select their victims. They get acquainted with them. And when they least expect it, the serial killer strikes." (serialkillersvictimschoosing.wikispaces.com)

Do you think this holds for the Ripper - did the Ripper get acquainted with his victims?

The Ripper is usually said to have been a "killer of strangers" which made him harder to trace than a killer who had known the victims well. This would have made it hard for the London police to catch the man, who would be used to dealing with crimes committed by acquaintances or to question the neighborhood hoodlums about a criminal, on the thought that the killer could have been a known local that the hoods might know.

If he spent some time getting acquainted with a victim the time would probably have been short -- a matter of minutes. It could be that the man had "something about him" that made him seem trustworthy -- his profession or the manner on the man. He could also have given the victim gifts as with Polly Nichols and her "jolly bonnet" or the flower Liz Stride was wearing at her bosom at the time of her death.

Best regards

Chris

[Abby Normal]

The Ripper is usually said to have been a "killer of strangers" which made him harder to trace than a killer who had known the victims well. This would have made it hard for the London police to catch the man, who would be used to dealing with crimes committed by acquaintances or to question the neighborhood hoodlums about a criminal, on the thought that the killer could have been a known local that the hoods might know.

If he spent some time getting acquainted with a victim the time would probably have been short -- a matter of minutes. It could be that the man had "something about him" that made him seem trustworthy -- his profession or the manner on the man. He could also have given the victim gifts as with Polly Nichols and her "jolly bonnet" or the flower Liz Stride was wearing at her bosom at the time of her death.

Best regards

Chris

Yup. Bingo

[Michael W Richards]

"Overall, serial killers do not know their victims because if they did, they’d be easy to trace. “On occasion, an early victim of a serial killer is someone they know well who is very easy to access. Most of the time serial killers are smart enough to make sure it isn’t too easy to connect the dots…A stranger homicide is the safest bet.” (Brown 79-80) Serial killers take their time to select their victims. They get acquainted with them. And when they least expect it, the serial killer strikes." (serialkillersvictimschoosing.wikispaces.com)

Do you think this holds for the Ripper - did the Ripper get acquainted with his victims?

A really interesting question, and very important in the overall picture. We have the first 2 victims who admitted to associates that they were soliciting on the nights they were killed...likely a stranger, posing as a client, but not impossible that they knew each other either. You have the 3rd victim inside a passageway on private property with sweets in her hand and flowers on her jacket. No way of knowing whether she knew her killer. Kate Eddowes is supposedly last seen placing her hand on the chest of someone it seems likely she knew. Did he kill her, or was it even her, no one knows. So again, unclear whether she knew her assailant. Mary Kelly is killed in the most intimate fashion of all the priors, she has "slashes", she has defensive wounds, she is in bed, in her underclothing, and facing the partition wall when her throat was cut. It could be Blotchy, but we don't know whether he was an instant acquaintance or friend, it could be George, if he was indeed the Wideawake Man, and he claims that he knew her. it seems likely that Mary at least was killed by someone she knew, by the intimacy of the surroundings, the angry actions taken upon her, the fact she had her guard down at the time of the murder, and it would have been nearly impossible to slip into the room and loom over her while she was sleeping without her waking. Elizabeth Prater stated she could hear when things were moving about in Marys room.

My point here is that the vast majority of murders take place between peoples known to each other. In these cases, with some unique wounds, its tempting to take the dangling fruit and accept a theory that has only one person capable of the acts. That's just not the case in real life. people emulate, try to confuse the investigations, get lost in rage and anger and just vent, and are influenced by what they hear and read.

[Fisherman]

A really interesting question, and very important in the overall picture. We have the first 2 victims who admitted to associates that they were soliciting on the nights they were killed...likely a stranger, posing as a client, but not impossible that they knew each other either. You have the 3rd victim inside a passageway on private property with sweets in her hand and flowers on her jacket. No way of knowing whether she knew her killer. Kate Eddowes is supposedly last seen placing her hand on the chest of someone it seems likely she knew. Did he kill her, or was it even her, no one knows. So again, unclear whether she knew her assailant. Mary Kelly is killed in the most intimate fashion of all the priors, she has "slashes", she has defensive wounds, she is in bed, in her underclothing, and facing the partition wall when her throat was cut. It could be Blotchy, but we don't know whether he was an instant acquaintance or friend, it could be George, if he was indeed the Wideawake Man, and he claims that he knew her. it seems likely that Mary at least was killed by someone she knew, by the intimacy of the surroundings, the angry actions taken upon her, the fact she had her guard down at the time of the murder, and it would have been nearly impossible to slip into the room and loom over her while she was sleeping without her waking. Elizabeth Prater stated she could hear when things were moving about in Marys room.

My point here is that the vast majority of murders take place between peoples known to each other. In these cases, with some unique wounds, its tempting to take the dangling fruit and accept a theory that has only one person capable of the acts. That's just not the case in real life. people emulate, try to confuse the investigations, get lost in rage and anger and just vent, and are influenced by what they hear and read.

Annie Chapman had her abdominal wall removed in a few large panes of flesh and subustaneous tissue. Mary Kelly suffered the exact same fate.

Can you explain to me how that does not point to a common killer, Michael?

On the topic of the thread, I agree with Chris - it looks very much like a killer who made himself out to be a harmless, benevolent punter, and who aquainted his victims in their professional capacity.

[Michael W Richards]

Annie Chapman had her abdominal wall removed in a few large panes of flesh and subustaneous tissue. Mary Kelly suffered the exact same fate.

Can you explain to me how that does not point to a common killer, Michael?

On the topic of the thread, I agree with Chris - it looks very much like a killer who made himself out to be a harmless, benevolent punter, and who aquainted his victims in their professional capacity.

Its also interesting how people choose to believe what they want Fisherman, because in ONLY 2 cases within the Canonical Group do we have evidence which suggests that the women were killed by a "punter" looking for pay-for-play. The first 2. They both admitted they were soliciting. There is no such evidence for any of the remaining Canonicals.....but I wouldnt expect someone who seeks to grow an alleged and unlikely series of 5 into a "multitude of victims killed in any manner" series to take what is offered in the evidence only.

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: Its also interesting how people choose to believe what they want Fisherman, because in ONLY 2 cases within the Canonical Group do we have evidence which suggests that the women were killed by a "punter" looking for pay-for-play. The first 2. They both admitted they were soliciting.

I do not "want" to believe that he acted as a punter - I simply look at the facts and conclude that this is the most likely possibility, strengthened by how scores of other serialists have used the exact same ruse.
I think that it is very improductive to claim that those who do not agree with us are simply "believing what they want to believe". Very many posters out here are quite well read up on the facts surrounding this case and many other cases that offer likenesses, and so they deserve being respected for their views every bit as much as you do yourself.

There is no such evidence for any of the remaining Canonicals.....but I wouldnt expect someone who seeks to grow an alleged and unlikely series of 5 into a "multitude of victims killed in any manner" series to take what is offered in the evidence only.

I am not growing a series of five, I am growing one of six, Michael. And there is ample evidence to allow for that growth. Otherwise I would not do it.
As an aside, nobody can prove a suspects guilt going on the evidence only. Similarly, if anybody should try to prove that there were two, three, four, five or more Rippers at work, they will find themselves shortchanged on the evidence side too. It is just something that we will have to live with. At the end of the day, it is not about who proves his case, it´s about who presents the case that has the most evidence going for it.

Once we realize that, you may understand that I am not worried at all on that point.

[etenguy]

The Ripper is usually said to have been a "killer of strangers" which made him harder to trace than a killer who had known the victims well. This would have made it hard for the London police to catch the man, who would be used to dealing with crimes committed by acquaintances or to question the neighborhood hoodlums about a criminal, on the thought that the killer could have been a known local that the hoods might know.

This is the received wisdom and I have no reason to doubt it is the most likely scenario.

If he spent some time getting acquainted with a victim the time would probably have been short -- a matter of minutes. It could be that the man had "something about him" that made him seem trustworthy -- his profession or the manner on the man. He could also have given the victim gifts as with Polly Nichols and her "jolly bonnet" or the flower Liz Stride was wearing at her bosom at the time of her death.

Best regards

Chris

Your point about the gift giving is interesting - though if that were the case, certainly in respect of Polly Nichols, it would mean he had met her on more than one occasion. Perhaps he did spend at least some time getting acquainted with his victims. It would be relatively easy to do if he was a punter - but the idea of gift giving might suggest a different approach. Even if that was the case, I expect that Catherine Eddowes would have been an exception - a last minute opportunistic murder because of being interrupted earlier.

[Joshua Rogan]

He could also have given the victim gifts as with Polly Nichols and her "jolly bonnet" or the flower Liz Stride was wearing at her bosom at the time of her death.

It seems unlikely to me that Polly got the bonnet from her killer. For one thing, I vaguely recall Debs uncovering something that pointed to it being a charitable donation. I could be wrong on this, though.
According to Emily Holland, Polly told her she had earned he doss money three times and spent it again, that night. So the jolly bonnet was working well, but if it was a gift then, despite it, Jack was at best fourth on Polly's visiting list.

[Damaso Marte]

People who don't believe in a Ripper generally try to pin the murders they dispute as one-offs by people who knew the victim - as is on display in this very thread. So I think even they tend to associate serial killers with stranger-killing.

[Michael W Richards]

People who don't believe in a Ripper generally try to pin the murders they dispute as one-offs by people who knew the victim - as is on display in this very thread. So I think even they tend to associate serial killers with stranger-killing.

"Serial" killings consist of 2 or more murders, so in that context is it highly unlikely that within some 13 unsolved cases there might be multiple, multiple murderers, as well as individual murders?

Personally I believe that there was someone who fits this Jack moniker, in that he was a monster who killed and mutilated simply because he desired to. I think he killed at the very least 2 women within the Canonical Group. The circumstances were the same, as was the Victim profile, the method used to subdue then incapacitate seem virtually identical, the wound patterns show the same unusual focus and severity, and both were left to be discovered shortly after the crime was committed. Which adds the ingredient of Terrorist and perhaps voyeur, if he chose to return to the crime scenes shortly thereafter, within the crowds.

Its not an objection to the premise that there were serial murders during that period, I accept that there was one... and likely 2, if the Torsos were executed by someone else.

Its an objection to the premise that the very different circumstances in each case and the very different types of attacks can be explained by a singular serial monster who apparently owned the murder franchise rights within greater London for a number of months, or perhaps years.