Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

I wouldn't have you lump them in any way that you don't want, Christer. I myself would place them next to one another in chronological order, but that's me.

Okay. I was just a bit flummoxed by the phrase "lump them together in one pile". I thought it sounded kind of sloppy, like an unconsidered and lazy approach. And I can assure you that there is nothing at all sloppy or lazy about how I do the maths in this case. It involves looking t the cases next to another in chronological order, for example.
At the end of the day, if a case is to be made for a common originator, the similarities must be the factual evidence on which such a case is made.

[Michael W Richards]

Once again, should someone - unlikely though it may seem - arrive at the wrongful conclusion that I would have based my take of a common killer on any other similarities than the ones we have on record, then that somebody is of course deluding himself rather badly.

Once we wisely avoid entering any phantasyland of interpretations and instead cooly simply note that that abdominal flaps WERE taken from the abdomens of two or more victims in the same town and time, the rarity of the act points directly to a common perpetrator.
The inference is self-evident and indisputable.

I do hope nobody is so clueless as to claim the opposite!

" From your post 765 Fisherman, "...

If such a person - unlikely though it seems - should go a step further and claim that the taking away of the abdominal flaps in the same town and time would not indicate a common killer REGARDLESS of the exact apparition of the damage done, he or she is talking delusion one step further."

What you seem to be saying is that the differences cannot matter. If something happens that matches, in general terms, a description of an act that is found in prior cases, ...factors such as the size, shape, technique used, implement used, circumstantial evidence, location, ..all of that is meaningless when assessing who this perpetrator was. "Why,...well because he MUST be the same man regardless of all the other factors present and what they might reveal...because 2 or more men would never repeat something that they read about, or have their own inspirational reasons for doing those acts. Cant happen. So its gotta be the same man."

I am hoping you see how that is desperately clinging to a pre-existing premise, and has little to do with subjective review of all relevant data.

[FrankO]

Excuse me for the late reply, Christer; I had other things on my mind.

To me, all we can say is that Mary Kelly was reasonably aware about what happened since she was alive when she received that cut. Therefore, she may well have reacted to it by way of putting up some sort of fight. It is not all that hard to imagine, is it; the killer sneaks in, she awakes in her bed, sees him wielding a knife, puts her hand up in defense and gets that cut to the thumb in the process. She then puts her finger in his eye and cries "Oh, murder!", whereupon he puts his hand over her mouth, angles her head backwards and cuts her throat. Of course, that is only a suggestion, but I fail to see why it would not be a viable suggestion.

I haven’t said it’s not a viable suggestion, Christer. However, I simply see very little reason to believe that it did happen. But I’m glad that we agree that she was aware of what was happening, if only for a few seconds.

When it comes to the arm wounds, I always had a hard time regarding them as being defensive wounds. They are in the wrong place to be defensive wounds; normally, such wounds end up on the inside of the lower arm, not on the outside. This makes them so much the more interesting, since they seem to have been inflicted with no practical reason at all.

Then we see eye to eye on this, too!

But we do not know that it IS a "such" murder, do we?

We can only judge it by the looks and by the looks of it, it IS such a murder, meaning that the perpetrator, for whatever reason, did things so that it ended up looking like “such” a murder.

Not do we know if the killers intention was always to produce "such" murders.

That is correct, Christer. If the Ripper were to have had a go at another victim indoors, he would very likely not have done the exact same things, but I doubt that it would have looked a great deal different from what he did to MJK, considering what he did to his previous victims. But, you're right, we can't be sure of it.

The kind of murder you are referring to is a savage type of sexual attack with the intent to damage mainly the sexually oriented parts of the body, and I do NOT think myself that this was the case. If the element IS involved, then I believe it is only a partial explanation to what we see.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a savage type of attack, as in, done by someone who isn’t much in control of himself; it’s an attack on those parts of the body that are attractive to the murderer, but I believe he may also do things for shock value or to make it, to his own mind at least, some sort of work of art. Jack Owen Spillman is an example of a killer who seems to fit this description and Samantha Bisset’s murder by Robert Clive Napper as well, as far as the “work of art” is concerned.

Now, Vernon Geberth; did he also say that "such" murders involve the taking out of inner organs in a manner that left them whole and seemingly undamaged? I bet he didnīt.

When talking about “such” murders, he does say that evisceration (removal of the viscera from the abdominal cavity) may take place and gives examples of evisceration cases and one in which inner organs were taken out and taken or thrown away, but, no he doesn’t mention whether they remained (or should be expected to remain) undamaged during or after that.

Did he urge us to expect the kiler to fashion a makeshift pillow from a breast, two kidneys and the uterus and put it under the victims head? Hardly.

He does say that ‘posing’ and ‘propping’ of the body may be expected, but doesn’t talk about posing of body parts in this respect. However, as an example he described a case that involved a victim whose breasts were cut off, one placed on the victims face and the other on her vagina. In another case he gave as an example of such murders, the perpetrator (Jack Owen Spillman) had cut out the vaginal area from one of his victims and placed in her mouth, while he had also cut off her breasts, which he transported to the bedroom and placed them on end tables on either side of the bed where the daughter's body was found. With the daughter of this victim he had done more or less the same; he put the excised piece of skin containing the vaginal area on the side of her face.

Did he say that we should expect the face to have been more or less cut away in "such" cases?

Actually, he does say that in “such” cases this is what sometime happens in cases of disorganized killers (“extreme assault of the face”), but he also says that anything a disorganized killer does may also be done by an organized one and vice versa. He also has an example of a killer who killed a victims somewhere and then brought her to an outdoors location and placed her in a degrading position, belly down, legs spread. The offender then scalped the victim and hung her hair on some debris at the scene. He also removed her breasts and eviscerated the victim's body.

Ironically, I believe the reason that the Kelly murder has always been looked upon as the pinnacle of evil and the most gruesome sight a policeman could encounter, is that the killer took great care to style the body scene in minute detail. What looks like mayhem is a carefully executed exhibition, if you ask me. But that is another matter!

I don’t argue with you on this one, because I, to a large degree, agree with your view.

If we are to draw close, then why not take a look at the Kingsbury Run killer, active 1934-39? Most victims were dismembered and found in pieces.

But in June of 1936, a victim was found with the body intact but for the head, that had been taken off. The body had, however, also been emptied of all itīs blood, like the 1873 torso victim. And in July of 1937, the killer had, around ten victims into the series, suddenly added a new element: he had gutted the abdomen and torn the heart out from that victim, a victim who was dismembered, by the way. The victim Edward Andrassy, found in September 1935, was found with the body completely intact - but beheaded and emasculated.
True, it is not the exact same - but the elements are there to a significant degree.

It is, indeed, a very interesting case, Christer. Especially reminiscent of the London torso murders and, much less so, of the Ripper murders.

Because the damage furthest removed from the core interests of a killer are the ones least likely to appear on a victim, and that means that such a victim should not be put forward as the best representation of what the killer will do if given the chance. Plus when we only have one single example in a series of these damages, we cannot know what is the reason for them being present.

I think you’re exaggerating a little here. Plus I’m not claiming to know the reason for why the Ripper did what he did to his victims; I’m just establishing that what was done to Mary Jane Kelly corresponds with what can be expected in “such” cases and that the prior murders are in line with what was done to her. At least according to what Vernon Geberth wrote about it.

[Michael W Richards]

Drat! Those pesky Victorians and their hats! Foiled again. Well, back to the drawing board I go...

Save yourself some time Al, Schwartz's account has nothing at all to do with the Investigation into how she dies. Its a statement on record, not a lead.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al
eventhough the suspect seen attacking her was wearing a peaked cap, which pretty much all the relevant witnesses that night also saw, including lawende and company?(and of course that the general descriptions all match along with the peaked cap).

Drat! Those pesky Victorians and their hats! Foiled again. Well, back to the drawing board I go...

[Abby Normal]

I suppose it's only really defensible if you subscribe to the interruption model.
It stands to reason the police at the time included it, another unfortunate with a slashed throat, right time and place, it's why we still include her now.
If she's another victim of the Whitechapel killer, then, like the torso cases, it's weighing up similarities and differences. Personally, I find the single cut on stride, although not the same as the other victims, is still sufficient to arouse suspicion. I can understand a random murder involving stabbing, grabbing, scratches and such, but a single, deep slash of the throat is worthy of consideration as by the same hand.
But if he wasn't disturbed or scared off, you'd have to assume there would at least be damage to the abdomen, in its absence it reduces her likelyhood as a victim.
It's difficult to include Stride without the interruption model, and it's tie in to a frustrated killer increasing the level of violence in Mitre Square.
That said though, maybe she was killed by him and not mutilated for reasons we'd never guess?
I'm not conclusive on this any more than other aspects of the case, but I personally err on the side of caution and don't include her.

Hi Al
eventhough the suspect seen attacking her was wearing a peaked cap, which pretty much all the relevant witnesses that night also saw, including lawende and company?(and of course that the general descriptions all match along with the peaked cap).

[Michael W Richards]

I suppose it's only really defensible if you subscribe to the interruption model.

That's a roger Al. And, since there actually is no Interruption Model, because there is absolutely no evidence of it, she doesn't belong in the C5. When looking at other murders that people want to marry with other types of murders, that pesky "any evidence of" will still be a factor. Like...is there any evidence that Jack the Ripper spent time cutting up people indoors....only if you apply the "Ripper/Torso model', which additionally has no supporting evidence.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

So this cycle will end, Ill just ask you how many of the men investigating one or both of these series believed there was a link of the series by the injuries inflicted on the victims?

Idd add second question If I may....what would the reasoning be for acceptance of a murder with different characteristics than the ones I mentioned earlier into a series of murders by the same person? For example, Why would anyone think that Liz Stride is part of a series of murders when the preceding murders she is being linked with are characteristically unlike hers?

Im curious how people would defend that position.

I suppose it's only really defensible if you subscribe to the interruption model.
It stands to reason the police at the time included it, another unfortunate with a slashed throat, right time and place, it's why we still include her now.
If she's another victim of the Whitechapel killer, then, like the torso cases, it's weighing up similarities and differences. Personally, I find the single cut on stride, although not the same as the other victims, is still sufficient to arouse suspicion. I can understand a random murder involving stabbing, grabbing, scratches and such, but a single, deep slash of the throat is worthy of consideration as by the same hand.
But if he wasn't disturbed or scared off, you'd have to assume there would at least be damage to the abdomen, in its absence it reduces her likelyhood as a victim.
It's difficult to include Stride without the interruption model, and it's tie in to a frustrated killer increasing the level of violence in Mitre Square.
That said though, maybe she was killed by him and not mutilated for reasons we'd never guess?
I'm not conclusive on this any more than other aspects of the case, but I personally err on the side of caution and don't include her.

[Michael W Richards]

So this cycle will end, Ill just ask you how many of the men investigating one or both of these series believed there was a link of the series by the injuries inflicted on the victims?

Idd add second question If I may....what would the reasoning be for acceptance of a murder with different characteristics than the ones I mentioned earlier into a series of murders by the same person? For example, Why would anyone think that Liz Stride is part of a series of murders when the preceding murders she is being linked with are characteristically unlike hers?

Im curious how people would defend that position.

[Michael W Richards]

By the way, for the unsavoury possibility that anybody would claim that I say that stomach flaps are so rare that they must be by one man, but yet I group 2 series of 12 victims together with that logic rather than using the 3 victims that actually had that injury inflicted, it of course applies that such a statement would be an infernal lie. Three cases of abdominal flaps having been taken cannot link 12 cases - but there can of course be further similarities within the 12 cases that can provide the links. And I have named these similarities a thousand times.
Making this kind of a statement would only bear witness to how either a total dishonesty or a nervewrecking ignorance was allowed to rule such a posters claims.
Actually, were somebody to make that kind of an outrageous statement, I would not bother with whatever more such a character could cook up. I would work from the assumption that it was mostly drivel.

To be fair and honest, you named what you believe can be construed as similarities, and taken some liberties while doing so. And you continue to personally attack rather than honestly place an argument for your case. There is sense of security doing that online I suppose.

So this cycle will end, Ill just ask you how many of the men investigating one or both of these series believed there was a link of the series by the injuries inflicted on the victims?

[FrankO]

How would you have me lump them, Frank...?

I wouldn't have you lump them in any way that you don't want, Christer. I myself would place them next to one another in chronological order, but that's me.

[Fisherman]

By the way, for the unsavoury possibility that anybody would claim that I say that stomach flaps are so rare that they must be by one man, but yet I group 2 series of 12 victims together with that logic rather than using the 3 victims that actually had that injury inflicted, it of course applies that such a statement would be an infernal lie. Three cases of abdominal flaps having been taken cannot link 12 cases - but there can of course be further similarities within the 12 cases that can provide the links. And I have named these similarities a thousand times.
Making this kind of a statement would only bear witness to how either a total dishonesty or a nervewrecking ignorance was allowed to rule such a posters claims.
Actually, were somebody to make that kind of an outrageous statement, I would not bother with whatever more such a character could cook up. I would work from the assumption that it was mostly drivel.

[Michael W Richards]

I just needed to know exactly how many of the rest of are wrong so you can be right....to recap...its now all the contemporary investigators, almost all the people who are members here, and most Profilers. I can see why you keep asserting that your observations must be correct, because so many of the rest of us are wrong.

I would have had little problem with you group stomach flaps together as likely being one person, but that's a really small number and only 25% of the 2 series combined. You didn't choose to start with what is known, you've just jumped to pure speculation.

You say you can learn that when eviscerations are present then the culprit chooses to eviscerate, yet you then add victims without those injuries to the same killer list. You say that stomach flaps are so rare that they must be by one man, yet you group 2 series of 12 victims together with that logic rather than using the 3 victims that actually had that injury inflicted. I stated that things could be learned from close examination of a kill, you said not everything can be learned..like that was ever said by someone. I think its a waste of time downplaying remarks that haven't yet been made, my opinion of course.

Since you seem to doubt that anything can be learned about a killer by close examination of a kill or kills, Ill make that clearer for you. Using, as I stated, the 2 sequential victims that most probably belonged to a solo killer nicknamed Jack.

Based on Polly and Annies murders and circumstances, their killer..;

1. He worked alone.
2. Sought out strangers who were actively seeking clients outdoors in the middle of the night.
3. Had no problem acting or playing a part, lying to or deceiving his victims to get their guard down, since he must have posed as a client.
4. Had interest in mutilating the victims abdomens after he killed.
5. Had some skills with a knife, and some anatomical knowledge.
6. Did not seem to mind high personal risk situations. Perhaps he preferred them.
7. Did not try and hide his work.
8. Used double throat cuts to ensure quicker deaths and bleed out, thereby removing any chance of a failure to kill, and decreasing the mess he dealt with.
9. He carried a knife with him all the time looking for opportunities, or he pre-planned by carrying one on the nights he planned on killing.
10. He had no specific targeted individual in mind.
11. He had some good knowledge of the streets and lanes locally.
12. He likely had somewhere to take Annies uterus that was his space alone.
13. He may have chosen victims based on their diminished physical condition,... one was ill, 1 was drunk.


That's a bakers dozen for you. That's also killer who lost his ability to control his murderous compulsions for extended periods, he couldnt even wait 2 weeks to act out again.

That's a preliminary profile of him, it doesn't reveal what he looked like, what he did for a living, WHY he did this, or what else he was capable of...its just based on what he did. Which can help narrow a search field.

[Fisherman]

Where you both tend to lump the similarities together in one pile, in my view the timelines and patterns (or lack thereof) are (still) too important to ignore.

How would you have me lump them, Frank...?

[Fisherman]

Now, is there any reason why anybody would go on claiming that he can establish character and personality in a killer only by looking at the damage done to a victim? I should hope not - I think I was very clear in my last post about how such aspirations are foolhardy. We know from the outset that different people will see different things in a murder scene and read different things into the aims and thoughts of the killer, and so we must accept that this is not an avenue open to any useful traffic. Itīs a logical train wreck.

And what if it is suggested that I believe that I can learn everything about a killer based on an evaluation of a specific kill? It would be equally foolhardy - what I say abyt others goes for me too; I cannot learn more than the evidence tells me. I can learn that a killer is interested in eviscerating if eviscerations are present on the crime sites, but I cannot decide WHY the killer eviscerates. I can identify the deed - but going on it, I can not identify the character of the killer. Nor can anybody else. It is guesswork only.

If somebody should ask me what I think profiling is? Then Iīd say that it is a semi-scientific part of the police work that will sometimes work, sometimes fail, for the exact same reason given above: we cannot conclude the character of a killer by looking at a crime. There are some floating consistencies involved that allow us to make educated guesses, but thatīs just about all of it. The cases where the profilers are spot on are the ones given space in the media. The ones where they get most of it dead wrong are the cases that nobody writes about.

In the end, it is all about how discerning we choose to be. If we choose not to be discerning at all, instead opting for the happy-go-lucky thinking that we know the killer like the insides of our pockets, that is fine by me - as long as we do not try to sell that view as the best solution available.

It is nothing of the sort.