Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

[Batman]

Not in terms of what actually happened to her, she isn't.

She demonstrates part of the escalation and learning JtR was undergoing.

The chronology, victimology, time and location are all there including sexual homicide.

There is nothing like these sexual cluster homicides anywhere around (edit: that are not contributed to the same hand; meaning they are). Not in Whitechapel, not in the East End, not in London, not in the UK.

They are that rare.

This is called a cluster of attacks in criminology. Clusters of rare MO and signatures identify serial offenders. In this case, it has identified a lust murderer.

[Batman]

No more an excuse than "Jack must have done it".
I don't have any problem with either. They were very different incidents that occurred months apart.
Was the fact that her assailants took her money beforehand a "lust robbery", then?
That's not a means of guaranteeing death, however. I'm happy with manslaughter.

"Jack done it" in the context is very much informative and moves us forward.

Coincidences never do that. They don't do anything actually. Nothing.

Let's see where "JtR did it" takes us as compared to... nothing.

1. Earliest crimes of a repeat offender are of most interest to serial crime investigations.
2. The evolution and escalation of the murder series is expanded with more details.
3. There are connections to the deaths of Smith and Tabram to consider.
4. The geoprofile indicates these are cluster attacks by the same hand.
5. It tells us he didn't understand how to murder someone quickly.
6. It tells us his knowledge of human anatomy was actually quite bad.
7. He couldn't afford to get bloody at all.
8. And plenty more... like crimes radiating out from this area.

Stealing things from a victim is not contradictory in any form of serial homicides as is well demonstrated by reading other true crimes.

[MrBarnett]

Ok. So if we say we are certain that Smith and Tabram were by the same hand as the C5 etc, it follows that the possibility of those attacks being by someone else is so remote we can ignore it? In other words, it is inconceivable that anyone other than JTR might have attacked a woman in Whitechapel in 1888?

No doubt you'll ignore the evidence and blather on about 'lust' murders.

[Sam Flynn]

She demonstrates part of the escalation and learning JtR was undergoing.

What happened to Smith, Tabram and Nichols wasn't "escalation" but entirely different things. "Escalation" is used like a magic wand far too often.

And, if we are to see the transition from ramming a blunt instrument in the vagina to stabbing someone's upper half 38 times as "learning", one wonders what method of sexual homicide he tried prior to Smith. Perhaps he put some hungry mice in someone's knickers.

[MrBarnett]

What happened to Smith, Tabram and Nichols wasn't "escalation" but entirely different things. "Escalation" is used like a magic wand far too often.

And, if we are to see the transition from ramming a blunt instrument in the vagina to stabbing someone's upper half 38 times as "learning", one wonders what method of sexual homicide he tried prior to Smith. Perhaps he put some hungry mice in someone's knickers.

Gareth,

You know what they say about hitting your head against a brick wall - it's nice when you stop.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

What happened to Smith, Tabram and Nichols wasn't "escalation" but entirely different things. "Escalation" is used like a magic wand far too often.

And, if we are to see the transition from ramming a blunt instrument in the vagina to stabbing someone's upper half 38 times as "learning", one wonders what method of sexual homicide he tried prior to Smith. Perhaps he put some hungry mice in someone's knickers.

But before I move into the nice zone...

How can going from ramming a blunt instrument into a women's vagina to virtually ignoring that part of the body of the next victim be condidered an 'escalation' of 'lust murder'?

[Batman]

Ok. So if we say we are certain that Smith and Tabram were by the same hand as the C5 etc, it follows that the possibility of those attacks being by someone else is so remote we can ignore it? In other words, it is inconceivable that anyone other than JTR might have attacked a woman in Whitechapel in 1888?

No doubt you'll ignore the evidence and blather on about 'lust' murders.

I am not ignoring any evidence and presenting plenty of it to dispense with the coincidences (plural) claims of two 'spur-of-the-moment' attacks (coincidences that have no evidence for it) that you think are so different as to have no connection to the C5.

You might not like that the criteria for lust murderers exist or that your criteria (seemingly absence of it) fails to segregate out sexual homicides from a punter/gang getting overly aggressive, but that is what it does. Obviously, though you no doubt will be bringing up the very same technique used to connect the C5 and other serial true crimes. Victimology, location, time and sexual attacks.

The coincidence claims are the very claims that have produced nothing. Instead, they (plural) produce a stagnant comfortable position that gets uncomfortable when the 'coincidence' conclusion is shown to be the low probability option and when coincidences are used in multiplicity, then we have extremely low probability solutions. This is why they are so much easier to dismiss.

[Batman]

What happened to Smith, Tabram and Nichols wasn't "escalation" but entirely different things. "Escalation" is used like a magic wand far too often.

And, if we are to see the transition from ramming a blunt instrument in the vagina to stabbing someone's upper half 38 times as "learning", one wonders what method of sexual homicide he tried prior to Smith. Perhaps he put some hungry mice in someone's knickers.

You have no criteria to segregate out a lust killer from your 'spur-of-the-moment' claims. None at all. Which is why when pressed on it, you avoid it and then continue to make claims that it's not an escalation, despite descriptions of why it is an escalation been given including the chronology, time and place. No magic wand, just you think we don't have criteria like yourself, which is wrong.

Do you even believe JtR escalated? That he shows a common pattern of learning from his sexual homicides?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Trevor

Sheffield Evening Telegraph 27th Feb 1895:
Again, from The Worship Street Police Court:
Alice Graham: I did not see the knife but felt it inside me

[Batman]

But before I move into the nice zone...

How can going from ramming a blunt instrument into a women's vagina to virtually ignoring that part of the body of the next victim be condidered an 'escalation' of 'lust murder'?

Whose vagina area was ignored? If you mean Tabram, then I am done here discussing this with you. Obviously, you are reading a different case than the Whitechapel murders.

[Sam Flynn]

But before I move into the nice zone...

How can going from ramming a blunt instrument into a women's vagina to virtually ignoring that part of the body of the next victim be condidered an 'escalation' of 'lust murder'?

Quite. I suspect that the answer to that will involve that other favourite magic wand "it's not about penetrative sex, but about exercising control over the victim", or some other mechanism designed to make whatever we want fit our preconceptions.

[Sam Flynn]

Whose vagina area was ignored?

He said "virtually ignored".

Oh, and once again, "private part" does not mean "vaginal area", which in turn does not mean "vagina" or "in the vagina".

[Batman]

Quite. I suspect that the answer to that will involve that other favourite magic wand "it's not about penetrative sex, but about exercising control over the victim", or some other mechanism designed to make whatever we want fit our preconceptions.

The professional literature is extensive on the topic of lust murders with lots of elements corroborated by the history of lust murder criminology.

If it was wrong, where are your professional sources contesting it?

You have none. If you did you could even borrow some criteria instead of having nothing and whatever you want to fit your preconception.

I didn't invent lust murders. I didn't do the research papers. They are facts of criminology.

[Batman]

He said "virtually ignored".

Oh, and once again, "private part" does not mean "vaginal area", which in turn does not mean "vagina" or "in the vagina".

Oh how misleading right? Totally giving the wrong impression that her vaginal area had been assaulted and bled profusely.

Virtual or not, he suggests the area is ignored, which is really just you both ignoring the wound and not the fact it exists as evidence of a sexual homicide.

Do you know how many mess-ups in modern serial homicide investigations are because of claims an incident or set of incidents was unrelated? Just in the UK alone we can demonstrate all those mistakes done many times over. It allowed them to continue offending. Just like JtR did.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

Sheffield Evening Telegraph 27th Feb 1895:
Again, from The Worship Street Police Court:
Alice Graham: I did not see the knife but felt it inside me

Still could apply to being stabbed !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk