Serial Killers, A pattern???

[lynn cates]

once more into the breach dear friends

Hello Corey.

"Again must I say that just because [M}artha[']s throat wasn[']t cut doesn[']t mean she isn[']t a victim[. L]ike I have said befor[e] his MO isn[']t always consistent."

Very well. But you were lining them up based on a cut throat.

"By the way when did I say every woman with her throat cut was a victim of Jack the Ripper?"

Excellent! So we can dispose of the London 1888 criterion as well? I'd be delighted.

"Killing isn[']t a motive. Motivation would have to include a reason, killing to kill is more of a impulse."

Why can one not be motivated by impulse? It looks like a HUGE motivation from where I sit. You mean a logical reason? I don't think such can be found for what "Jack" did.

"Lynn, you think that everyone who thought the C5 to be linked to be mistaken?'

Gee, don't you think those who don't are mistaken?

"May I ask, again, why would a killer stop after murdering two women?"

That depends on the murderer's object. Why would one stop after 5?

"And yes killing yourself would end the hate."

And we know this because . . . ?

"When people say that a killer must follow a distinctive pattern in killing, an identic[a]l one, that just makes my head ache."

Who says this? But Corey, don't you assume this when you lump some together (C5) and don't include others? Why can't Jack leave torsos about?

"That is clearly what you and PM believe, and I might add is entirely incorrect."

Perhaps so. And the evidence? Private information?

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

philosophy

Hello Observer.

"For those of us who have not been sitting on our backsides for most of our lives contemp[lat]ting late medieval logic, could you explain "faith in an external, material reality"?"

Sitting on one's "netherlands" is not the best place to think. Pacing works well for me. At any rate, I'd be delighted to explain. The philosophical problem (coming to the fore in the early modern period--not the mediaeval) is to justify (in absolute terms) the purported correspondence between our sensory perceptions and an external, material reality.

Descartes lined them up based on faith in God. Hume thought of it as habit or custom. Locke, who wished not for certainty, was happy to navigate his "environment." Kant considered it an a priori category of the mind. All these are various expressions of faith--a faith I share, but faith, nonetheless.

"You really should get out more you know."

Why? I started as a dustman and worked for about 13 years at it. Now I do other things. Out is good; in is good.

"I do not read all your posts, indeed I normal[l]y get about half way and then give up."

No problem.

"One thing could you give me your opinion as to which murders (C5) you consider to be perpetrated by the same hand?"

Of course. (Be advised that personal opinions are worth little.) Although I should like to have someone discover a diary entitled, "The life of Dr. Stanley" wherein he confesses to the C5, my personal opinion is that C1 and C2 were by the same hand; C3 is unrelated; C4 and C5 by another. There is also a good possibility that C4 belongs with C1 and C2.

My opinion and 1 pound should get you a cup of coffee.

The best.
LC

[corey123]

Lynn,

Again must I say that just because marthas throat wasnt cut doesnt mean she isnt a victim, like I have said befor his MO isnt always consistent.

By the way when did I say every woman with her throat cut was a victim of Jack the Ripper???

Killing isnt a motive. Motivation would have to include a reason, killing to kill is more of a impulse.

Lynn, you think that everyone who thought the C5 to be linked to be mistaken?? May I ask, again, why would a killer stop after murdering two women??? And yes killing yourself would end the hate.

When people say that a killer must follow a distinctive pattern in killing, an identicle one, that just makes my head ache. That is clearly what you and PM believe, and I might add is entirely incorrect.

yours truly

[Observer]

There may very well be one clever chap--"Jack"--responsible for all C5. Very well. May it be so. But right now, it is little more than a faith claim (indeed, several faith claims--beginning with faith in an external, material reality).

Hi Lynn

For those of us who have not been sitting on our backsides for most of our lives contempalting late medieval logic, could you explain "faith in an external, material reality"? You really should get out more you know.

I do not read all your posts, indeed I normaly get about half way and then give up. I know observers to this site do the same with my posts, so don't worry, you are not alone. One thing could you give me your opinion as to which murders (C5) you consider to be perpetrated by the same hand?

all the best

Observer

[lynn cates]

hither and thither

Hello Corey.

"I see you really do have the thought that there is not one killer. But I cannot see that, I dont see that, I see one killer throughout the five killings."

Very well. We all see things arranged in different patterns. No harm in that.

"The reason I know the zodiac didn[']t have a motive was there is no evidence whatsoever pointing to a solid motive, he killed to kill."

Well, then, "killing" was his motive, right?

"And [J}ack did have a sign[a]ture, a cut throat, not a stabbed throat."

Well, so much for Martha Tabram.

"We are talking about killings within [L}ondon in the year 1888"

So, all cut throats in London in 1888 were by Jack? Very well.

"So I find it safe to say that it is highly likely and plaus[i]ble that one man killed all five women."

Safe? Of course. No penalties for being mistaken after 121 years. Plausible? Sure. SY found it plausible. So do I. Correct? That's another story.

"I said four out of the five because of some things similar, abdomen was open, organs taken, and organs removed and cut."

No organs taken from Polly. Indeed, you might wish to read Trevor Marriott's books and his views about organ removal.

"If someone had a grudge against the whole world (male and femal[e]) why kill only women?"

Perhaps he is a coward and a bully.

"Why not just kill your self to end your hate?"

Are you sure that self destruction would end your hate?

Permit me to leave you with this thought. We all divide up what we call the real world in various ways. Some ancient Chinese thinkers claimed 2 categories--that which belongs to the Emperor and, everything else. Aristotle carved it up according to his 10 "Categories"--1 of substance, 9 of accidents. Kant had 12 categories for his basic epistemological paradigm--and space and time (the mind's arrangement, too) preceded them all.

It is good to look at EVERY angle before arriving at a single view.

The best.
LC

[corey123]

lynn

Then what your saying is multiple killers that year killed exactly the same way????

I see you really do have the thought that there is not one killer. But I cannot see that, I dont see that, I see one killer throughout the five killings. I see a very clear connection. I didnt mean to say cannot and I changed it. The reason I know the zodiac didnt have a motive was there is no evidence whatso ever pointing to a solid motive, he killed to kill. And jack did have a signiture, a cut throat, not a stabbed throat. We are talking about killings within london in the year 1888, so you can narrow "tons of murders by cut throat" down to a spare few(and Im not talking about being stabbed in the throat). So I find it safe to say that it is highly likely and plausable that one man killed all five women. I said four out of the five because of some things similar, abdomen was open, organs taken, and organs removed and cut. If someone had a grudge against the whole world(male and femal) why kill only women??? Why not just kill your self to end your hate????

By the way you havent answered my question.

yours truly.

ps. I used PM for perrymason not DM. Thanks.

[lynn cates]

passim

Hello Corey.

"What you and [D]M are saying is that a serial killer MUST kill exactly the same every time he kills."

Well, I must speak for myself. But I am not saying that. I am really asking, "How do we know this is a serial killer?"

"Well it just happens that ser[ia]l killers do not do that, their killings are not the same each time, their methods cannot be identical all the time"

Why? Are they forbidden by law (snicker!)?

"they dont kill for a grudge (unless you had a grudge on quiet a few people)."

What if the grudge were against the WHOLE WORLD?

"If you had a grudge and killed the person you hated, why continue killing???"

The person? That indicates only 1; hence, no serial killing.

"In all the C5 the victims suffered from the same death, all their throats had been cut in almost an identical way every time."

Thousands in the history of the world have had their throats cut. "Jack" would be a busy boy.

"Four out of the five bore mutilation which looked almost exactly the same."

Umm. In 3 of the 5, the abdominal opening was similar. Were you aware that millions of appendix operations every year show similar signs? (Else, one might be subject to a malpractice suit.)

"The serial killer[']s sign[a]ture could be found in all five and the MO found in all five."

Really? What was that signature?

"Why would Jack need a motive??"

Without a motive, action is not possible. (See Iohannes Buridanus; or, if you prefer, David Hume.)

"The zodiac was a motivless killer"

Gee, how do you know this? Perhaps we don't KNOW his motive?

"why say Jack isn[']t?"

See above.

"We will never know the motive, but we can guess at one."

Possibly. But then perhaps we'll find yet another diary.

"In three of the five, the skirt was pulled above the lower body. In five of the five their throats had been cut. In two of the five the victims throats had been cut twice. And in three of the five either their viscera or their posses[s]ions had been ar[r]anged in a[n] o[d]d manner."

And the tie in is?

There may very well be one clever chap--"Jack"--responsible for all C5. Very well. May it be so. But right now, it is little more than a faith claim (indeed, several faith claims--beginning with faith in an external, material reality).

But I would not bet the farm on it.

The best.
LC

[corey123]

lynn

What you and PM are saying is that a serial killer MUST kill exactly the same every time he kills. Well it just happens that serial killers just dont do that, their killings are not the same each time, their methods are not be identical all the time, they dont kill for a grudge(unless you had a grudge on quiet a few people). If you had a grudge and killed the person you hated, why continue killing??? There would be no point. In all the C5 the victims suffered from the same death, all their throats had been cut in almost an identical way everytime. Four out of the five bore mutilation which looked almost exactly the same. The serial killers signiture could be found in all five and the MO found in all five.

Why would Jack need a motive?? The zodiac was a motivless killer... why say Jack isnt? We will never know the motive, but we can guess at one. In three of the five, the skirt was pulled above the lower body. In five of the five their throats had been cut. In two of the five the victims throats had been cut twice. And in three of the five either their viscera or their possesions had been arranged in a odd manner.

These victims all show links to one killer, unless the killer(s) plan were to confuse us later investigators by making Five murders almost wholly similar but not enough to prove us that they were all the act of one man..

Lastly I pose you and PM a question, answer this, why would a killer kill two people in the manner of C1 and C2 then just stop, leaving no other victims to claim??

yours truly

[lynn cates]

sed contra

Hello Dark.

"Are you saying that there is no reason to suggest that the five victims were killed by one individual going on evidence of motive alone?"

What is the motive? There are many possibilities.

"Four of them were killed and then horribly mutilated in virtually identical ways"

Are you sure about that? I can find many, significant differences.

"a serial killer employing a fairly consistent MO, leaving a fairly consistent signature, is blatantly clear here."

Not blatantly clear to me. Of course, it's quite possible.

"Stride's murder was either committed by someone else or the Ripper was disturbed before he could finish"

Or perhaps, for another reason. It has been suggested that he merely wanted an "appetizer."

"Kelly invited the Ripper into her doss house in order to copulate, allowing him a unique situation in which to work."

How do we know this? She may well have been asleep when he entered the room.

"Remember that serial killers don't kill individuals for personal reasons - people are simply not targeted by serial killers for, say, personal grudges"

Why not? Of course, one could argue that, if it is an incidence of a grudge, the killings are NOT unrelated and hence fail of the definition of serial killing. Perhaps so, but that brings up my final question--Why are you assuming that the C5 were a serial killing? Does not a serial killing require at least 3 by the same hand? If C1 and C2 were by one hand and C4 and C5 by another, and given Stride is unrelated, where's the serial killing? Are we to beg the question?

The best.
LC

[corey123]

Yes

Are you saying that there is no reason to suggest that the five victims were killed by one individual going on evidence of motive alone?

Four of them were killed and then horribly mutilated in virtually identical ways - a serial killer employing a fairly consistent MO, leaving a fairly consistent signature, is blatantly clear here. The only two abberations - Stride and Mary Kelly - are exceptions which prove the rule.
Stride's murder was either committed by someone else or the Ripper was disturbed before he could finish, and Kelly invited the Ripper into her doss house in order to copulate, allowing him a unique situation in which to work.

Remember that serial killers don't kill individuals for personal reasons - people are simply not targeted by serial killers for, say, personal grudges, they seek out "symbolic" victims to act out urges and fantasies. And JTR's signature is evidence of that very motive in four of the cases (personally, I tend to exclude Stride, but for the sake of argument she can still reasonable be included by way of circumstance).

Darkpassneger,

I pretty much agree with you 100%(with the exception of stride). I truly see the pattern and as I said before I also add tabram to the list of victims. thank you for that.

yours truly

[DarkPassenger]

In the Canonical Group, there is no evidence at all, physical or circumstantial, that the reason each were killed was a constant, consistent element of all 5.

My best regards corey

Are you saying that there is no reason to suggest that the five victims were killed by one individual going on evidence of motive alone?

Four of them were killed and then horribly mutilated in virtually identical ways - a serial killer employing a fairly consistent MO, leaving a fairly consistent signature, is blatantly clear here. The only two abberations - Stride and Mary Kelly - are exceptions which prove the rule.
Stride's murder was either committed by someone else or the Ripper was disturbed before he could finish, and Kelly invited the Ripper into her doss house in order to copulate, allowing him a unique situation in which to work.

Remember that serial killers don't kill individuals for personal reasons - people are simply not targeted by serial killers for, say, personal grudges, they seek out "symbolic" victims to act out urges and fantasies. And JTR's signature is evidence of that very motive in four of the cases (personally, I tend to exclude Stride, but for the sake of argument she can still reasonable be included by way of circumstance).

[corey123]

Narcissism

Is anyone on here a narcissist????
Just curious.

yours truly

[corey123]

Ha

Yes, Im sure its frustraiting. Anyways lynn hope you have a wounderfull christmass, for I wont be on much of the next week.

happy holidays to all here on casebook.
yours truly

[lynn cates]

work

Hello Corey.

I referred to your dictum:

"It is impossible for a narcissist to hold himself responsible for any mistakes or transgressions. In his eyes, he is the most moral, upstanding person on the planet. Thus a narcissist almost never seeks psychological assistance on his own. Charming, glib, and a master at upholding a carefully crafted image of himself"

Yep, you ought to WORK with these guys.

The best.
LC

[corey123]

Ha

Lynn,

I truly doubt any of your collegues have narcissism. If they do, you wouldnt notice it. Like I said earlier narcissism is very very hard to detect.

yours truly