Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

As for things that are repeated in some form seen in subsequent murders, once something is recognized by its character as being similar to something publicly revealed at an earlier date, the common knowledge factor can be a potential influence and must be considered. That some cutting injuries resemble other later injuries inflicted on victims is certainly noteworthy, but not something that is anything like conclusive proof of a link between the 2 by killer.

The personalities displayed are most certainly relevant, despite the protestations, and similar injuries appearing that have been made public knowledge earlier mean nothing more than similarities.

Since the position by the contemporary investigators was that these were series that were not connected by a single killer, rude rebuff of that simple truth isn't accurately portrayed as some kind of disillusion. Of course, the Agenda is the reason for that.

And if somebody claims that personalities are relevant, although that somebody cannot possibly know what personalities were actually involved?

That would be laughable! Not least since different people read in different personality types in selected murders. For example, I read in a calculating man, working to a fixed scheme in Mary Kellys murder, whereas someone else may read in a frenzied acquaintance, "revelling in blood" it the exact same murder. How useful is it to conclude from a personality perspective in such a case?
In essence, suggestions of personality types based on interpretations of crime scene evidence may end up in anything from disaster to success, for the simple reason that it will all build on guesswork. Suggestions of a single killer based on factual evidence of a rare and odd nature are not based on guesswork but instead on facts, and are therefore infinitely less at risk to be wrong. The one thing that can get in the way of getting in right in those cases is sheer fluke, and that fluke becomes less likely with every piece of evidence that speaks the same language. Meaning that the odds for two killers will be low with serial murder in the same town and time, very low indeed with two mutilating serial killers in the same town and time, ridiculously low with two eviscerating serial killers in the same town and time, and practically non-existant with two eviscerating serial killers who DO THE SAME THINGS, in the same town and time.

Once we have these self-corroborating inclusions, speaking about how useful we believe our personal takes on differing personalities are to tell the killers apart becomes something Monty Python would find too much over the top to joke about.

Which is why I sincerely hope nobody would even hint at prioritizing in that way! Maybe such a suggestion could come from a frustrated poster who would even go as far as to claim that there were no similarities inbetween the Ripper and Torso cases, I donīt know. Frustration does funny things to people.

[Michael W Richards]

And if somebody claims that personalities are relevant, although that somebody cannot possibly know what personalities were actually involved?

That would be laughable!

Now I know why you seem so muddled, but the character, or personality of a killer can very well be assessed and evaluated, which can then be used to measure whether subsequent acts bear the same traditions, inspirations, or character. You believe we cant learn anything about a killer based on an evaluation of a specific kill, so you generalize freely about how the killer would change to explain the various, obvious, differences. I get it. Youre opening position is incorrect, so anything that spawns from it will be.

What is it that you believe serial killer investigators do with the evidence they gather? What do you think Profiling is?

If one pragmatically reviews the Ripper murders from start to finish the only real consistency in both actions and environments will be found in the murders of Polly and Annie. Consecutive, within 10 days, virtually identical in every aspect excluding the greater severity of mutilations on Annie. Victimology the same, technique..etc. Things can be learned about that man by virtue of those murders. But that education would have to be discarded to accept the balance of the Canonicals. Or to match this "series" with another, much differently constructed series.

I prefer to use what is there. Jack was a spree killer. Any subsequent acts taken by killer(s) almost certainly were influenced, to a greater or lesser degree, by the coverage. Because they were not unique and unheard of, they were known, from that point forward.

[FrankO]

Sorry for my late response to your post, Abby.

IMHO you bring up some good points.

Thanks you!

If any of the ripper victims had dismemberment it would be game over for me.

Just like I would have been a step closer to believing in one killer, Abby.

That being said-when killing on the streets its not practical, and much more risky and time consuming to try and dismember. One cant easily carry around a saw, engage in dismemberment and carry away heads or limbs in this situation though. Re Kelly-yes it was in doors but a certain level of luck plays in here that she had her own place-and the killer still would have the same issues-not being able to carry around a saw nor easily escape her place with a limb or her head. And is cutting neck down to bone, flaying flesh off limbs and cutting away the breasts really THAT different? Not to me it isn't, especially since the torso victims also have post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment.

Obviously, it would have been much more risky and time-consuming doing a sort of full dismemberment outdoors, but, if dismembering was really his thing, he COULD have carried a small bone saw with him and could have cut/sawn off a hand, a foot or a finger or a whole ear and even a head. Especially if he wanted recognition. With Kelly he even would have had some time to do any of those things. And if he felt the need, he could easily have taken a hand, foot, ear or finger(s) away with him.

I agree with Fish that both killers had a certain anatomical curiosity-a trait most post mortem mutilators have-and that they enjoyed cutting up and removing parts of the female body-be it internal or external. Both killers did this. And the amount of other rare similarities-significance of the face and head being targeted, vertical gashes to the mid section, removing and taking away of parts etc. point heavily to the same man.

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.

I do see your point though.

As I see yours, Abby!

[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.

[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...?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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).

[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...

[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.