Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which Modern Era Killer Shares Most Similarity with Jack the Ripper?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
    Tom, I entirely agree with you. As everybody seems to struggle to find another serial killer who was truly comparable to Jack, is it not remarkable how few people are prepared to attribute more than 4 or 5 murders to Jack the Ripper? It seems illogical to argue, as many do, that no others are truly similar, but to accept that there were, in 1888, two serial killers operating simultaneously (and with a similar MO) in the same small area of London's East End.
    To be elevated to serial killer status a killer must have killed at least three victims in similar fashion.

    Comment


    • #32
      serial killers

      Hello Trevor, Bridewell. Hear, hear Trevor.

      Bridewell, I don't believe there were ANY serial killers in Whitechapel or Spitalfields in 1888.

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by AdamWalsh View Post
        Exactly, the Samantha Bissett murder scene was very similar to Mary Kelly in that she was gutted and displayed in her front room - the scene was apparently so upsetting the crime scene photographer was off work for months with distress.............plus of course Rachel Nickell was stabbed and slashed so viciously she was almost decapitated.
        I agree... Napper is a pretty good modern comparison. And he was schizophrenic. I talked about him in my book.

        Rob H

        Comment


        • #34
          none....... JTR is most like a tamed down version of Sutcliffe, JTR is colder and more focused/ calculating, Bundy and Sutcliffe are more like loose cannons

          Comment


          • #35
            Two to Tango...

            To be elevated to serial killer status a killer must have killed at least three victims in similar fashion.
            Hi all,

            Doesn't serial killer simply mean one who kills in a series? Isn't two a series?


            Greg

            Comment


            • #36
              Interesting

              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              To be elevated to serial killer status a killer must have killed at least three victims in similar fashion.
              Hi Trevor,

              Does this mean that a (hypothetical) killer who shot one victim, strangled the next, poisoned a third and cut the throat of a fourth would not be a serial killer?

              Surely, if the operative word here is "similar" (not "same"), there must have been at least one serial killer at large who dispatched (at least) Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.

              Lynn,

              "Bridewell, I don't believe there were ANY serial killers in Whitechapel or Spitalfields in 1888."

              A bold statement,that. It's at odds with the views of all the contemporary investigators.
              Last edited by Bridewell; 01-05-2012, 07:57 PM.
              I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

              Comment


              • #37
                A Series

                Originally posted by GregBaron View Post
                Hi all,

                Doesn't serial killer simply mean one who kills in a series? Isn't two a series?


                Greg
                I think so, Greg. Most dictionaries describe a series as:

                "A number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial or temporal succession" (or similar).

                Two murders (whatever the MO) would seem to be "events of the same class" in the mind of the proverbial "man on the Clapham omnibus" so beloved of lawyers.

                I'll have a look to see if there is any legal definition of serial killing.
                I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Further to my last, the FBI seem to accept the following:

                  The term ‘serial killings’ means a series of three or more killings, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.

                  I note the phrase "common characteristics" is preferred to "identical modus operandi" and "reasonable possibility" preferred to "absolute certainty".

                  On that basis I contend that there is every reason to believe that there was a serial killer at large, in and around Spitalfields, in 1888.

                  There is more detail at:

                  Last edited by Bridewell; 01-05-2012, 08:19 PM. Reason: Addition
                  I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    What's two then?

                    The term ‘serial killings’ means a series of three or more killings, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.
                    Thanks Bridewell.

                    I suppose Trevor and Lynn are using this definition. They are smart guys aren't they!

                    This being the case, I wonder what we would term Lynn's suspect JI, who he believed killed the first two women.

                    Is he a double whammy or what?


                    Greg

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Double Murderer?

                      Originally posted by GregBaron View Post
                      Thanks Bridewell.

                      I suppose Trevor and Lynn are using this definition. They are smart guys aren't they!

                      This being the case, I wonder what we would term Lynn's suspect JI, who he believed killed the first two women.

                      Is he a double whammy or what?


                      Greg
                      Hi Greg,

                      I think we have to concede the point that three is a minimum number. I would go for "double murderer", although (to me) that calls to mind someone who kills two people on a single occasion. "Multiple" suggests more than two.

                      I think we'll need to ask Lynn and / or Trevor what term they would use to describe such an individual.

                      Regards, Bridewell.
                      I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        This is also from the FBI website:

                        Myth: Serial killers are all dysfunctional loners.

                        The majority of serial killers are not reclusive, social misfits who live alone. They are not monsters and may not appear strange. Many serial killers hide in plain sight within their communities. Serial murderers often have families and homes, are gainfully employed, and appear to be normal members of the community. Because many serial murderers can blend in so effortlessly, they are oftentimes overlooked by law enforcement and the public.
                        I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          This is also taken from the FBI website:

                          Myth: Serial killers are all dysfunctional loners.

                          The majority of serial killers are not reclusive, social misfits who live alone. They are not monsters and may not appear strange. Many serial killers hide in plain sight within their communities. Serial murderers often have families and homes, are gainfully employed, and appear to be normal members of the community. Because many serial murderers can blend in so effortlessly, they are oftentimes overlooked by law enforcement and the public.

                          If we accept that the FBI know what they're talking about, I don't think we can eliminate any suspect simply on the basis that they live with their families or are not perceived as loners.
                          I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            litany

                            Hello Bridewell.

                            "A bold statement,that. It's at odds with the views of all the contemporary investigators."

                            Indeed? And how did those blokes do in catching their man?

                            Seriously, I can do a litany of those who believed otherwise.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              terminology

                              Hello Greg.

                              "I suppose Trevor and Lynn are using this definition."

                              They are indeed.

                              "This being the case, I wonder what we would term Lynn's suspect JI, who he believed killed the first two women."

                              A poor troubled schizophrenic in the midst of an especially violent episode. Frankly, I like the bloke when he's of sound mind.

                              Cheers.
                              LC

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                poor devil

                                Hello (again) Bridewell.

                                "I think we'll need to ask Lynn and / or Trevor what term they would use to describe such an individual."

                                Well, see above. But I might be permitted to suggest, "poor devil."

                                Cheers.
                                LC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X