Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

[Batman]

Well, of course, Ted Bundy once introduced himself, in front of several witnesses, as "Ted", thus giving away his real name. He then unsuccessfully attempted to abducted a victim by asking for help to unload a sailboat, even though there was no sailboat (this made her suspicious!) before successfully abducting another victim, in front of the same five witnesses, in his own car!

It's therefore debatable as to whether or not he was a criminal mastermind.

No doubt. However he switched to plastercasts and feigning incapacity didn't he?

[John G]

Well, of course, Ted Bundy once introduced himself, in front of several witnesses, as "Ted", thus giving away his real name. He then unsuccessfully attempted to abducted a victim by asking for help to unload a sailboat, even though there was no sailboat (this made her suspicious!) before successfully abducting another victim, in front of the same five witnesses, in his own car, I.e. a vehicle that was registered to him!

It's therefore debatable as to whether or not he was a criminal mastermind.

[Batman]

Oh, yes, you wrote that - of course, you expanded on it also. But the gist of it remains the same. And a planned murder and a frenzied one are different matters.

I am reading here about how in planned sexual homicides the perpetrator can go into a frenzy. Nothing is stopping them. Seems Ted Bundy was like this also.

[Fisherman]

I didn't write that. That's your creative edit.

Oh, yes, you wrote that - of course, you expanded on it also. But the gist of it remains the same. And a planned murder and a frenzied one are different matters.

[John G]

I thought Cream was ruled out because he was in Joilet prison at the time of the murders?

Excellent point, Batman. Although Donald Bell and Sir Edward Marshall- Hall suggested somewhat implausible solutions to this impediment.

[Batman]

Great point, Gareth. If Chapman, why not Cream? And I seem to have inexplicably forgotten about Stride, who was neither mutilated or subjected to the same degree of overkill-neck wound-as the other C5. I mean, being disturbed, for which there's no evidence, doesn't explain the latter point.

I thought Cream was ruled out because he was in Joilet prison at the time of the murders?

[John G]

Indeed, and I'd add to your list the prostitute murders of Thomas Neill Cream in 1891-92, and the third (domestic) victim of the "triple event", whose name escapes me at the moment. And those are just the murders most of us are aware of; God knows how many other murders of London women happened during that period that are completely off our radar.
I think we're all agreed, also, that they can't all have been killed by the same person.

Great point, Gareth. If Chapman, why not Cream? And I seem to have inexplicably forgotten about Stride, who was neither mutilated or subjected to the same degree of overkill-neck wound-as the other C5. I mean, being disturbed, for which there's no evidence, doesn't explain the latter point.

[Batman]

... and you are absolutely sure you thought that over before writing it?

I didn't write that. That's your creative edit.

... because it can just be for a period during the murder itself.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary
her story does have a basis in truth. I don't think she was making it up-its corroberated by the cop who saw the soldier.
The ripper could have been the other soldier-they are not mutually exclusive.


That being said several hours went by after the soldier episode and her being found dead. She could have found another client (the ripper) or maybe he found her dozing in the stairs.

Barratt's soldier sighting was a couple of hours adrift from Poll's story, wasn't it? Long after the pubs had closed. The story of their being taken on a pub crawl by two open-handed soldiers doesn't fit with that.

[Abby Normal]

Same here.

But it's a bit like what Andy Griffiths says about Lechmere, you can't just ignore Poll, just sweep her under the carpet and pass on to Nichols. What was her motivation? Was she a fantasist? Or was she trying to divert suspicion onto a soldier, and thereby away from someone else?

For me, it's either the soldier story has a basis in truth, or she was covering for someone - an individual who was close to her.

Hi Gary
her story does have a basis in truth. I don't think she was making it up-its corroberated by the cop who saw the soldier.
The ripper could have been the other soldier-they are not mutually exclusive.


That being said several hours went by after the soldier episode and her being found dead. She could have found another client (the ripper) or maybe he found her dozing in the stairs.

[Fisherman]

... the third (domestic) victim of the "triple event", whose name escapes me at the moment.

Brown.

[Fisherman]

I think frenzy isn't contradictory to planned murders.

... and you are absolutely sure you thought that over before writing it?

[Batman]

Hi Batman,

Did Chikatilo also commit more controlled murders?

I don't find this issue particularly easy to resolve. For instance, couldn't Tabram and the C5 all fall under the signature element of overkill?

And considering Kelly was hacked to pieces, by a perpetrator demonstrating no skill at all, isn't this murder also indicative of a frenzied assault to the body?

I think Chikatilo knew damn well he couldn't have sex with his victims and had a bag full of killing tools when he lost it with them. I think frenzy isn't contradictory to planned murders because it can just be for a period during the murder itself.

[Sam Flynn]

The difficulty I have is that there was an unprecedented number of unusual murders in London in the latter part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century

Indeed, and I'd add to your list the prostitute murders of Thomas Neill Cream in 1891-92, and the third (domestic) victim of the "triple event", whose name escapes me at the moment. And those are just the murders most of us are aware of; God knows how many other murders of London women happened during that period that are completely off our radar.

I assume we're all agreed that they can't all have been killed by different people.

I think we're all agreed, also, that they can't all have been killed by the same person.

[John G]

Same here.

But it's a bit like what Andy Griffiths says about Lechmere, you can't just ignore Poll, just sweep her under the carpet and pass on to Nichols. What was her motivation? Was she a fantasist? Or was she trying to divert suspicion onto a soldier, and thereby away from someone else?

For me, it's either the soldier story has a basis in truth, or she was covering for someone - an individual who was close to her.

Excellent points. The difficulty I have is that there was an unprecedented number of unusual murders in London in the latter part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, and I assume we're all agreed that they can't all have been killed by different people. However, trying to link murders together is so incredibly complicated, much more so than is generally accepted.

Thus, I assume most of us agree that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were by the same hand. But that still leaves the two early torso murders, the Tottenham torso, the four latter torso murders, Tabram, Mylett, McKenzie, Coles, Ellen Bury, Ronan, Kelly, Austin (the Dorset Street trio) and, finally, Chapman's "wives"!