Serial Killers, A pattern???

[corey123]

Really?

Like a link I havent mentioned? If I knew WHAT type of link we were looking for I might already know it. Heres a link to the thread.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3311&highlight=mary+jane+kelly

yours truly

[lynn cates]

sites

Hello Corey. Thanks. This is quite interesting.

The site I saw had graphics of all the cuts made upon Martha and the C5.

The best.
LC

[corey123]

Oh

a web site . I thought you ment a peice that linked all six murders, and I woundered if I already knew it. Those images of the "Artists" veiw of kelly are quite bizzar.

yours truly

[lynn cates]

wounds

Hello Corey. Yes. Quite bizarre.

Seeing ALL the wounds would be quite helpful in determining many questions.

The best.
LC

[corey123]

More infor

Here are some fine points to see while investigating narcissism.

"Little is understood about the disorder because of its very nature. 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, the malignant narcissist can manipulate and convince the most well respected, experienced medical professionals in the industry to sympathize with him, to be on his side. The fact that the best trained professionals have trouble identifying the disorder is an indication that victims are not merely "more apt to be impressed with superficiality and grandiosity" as one writer implied. Instead, malignant narcissists can con the smartest, most down-to-earth and loving people in society."

Thus, it points out some good qualities that the ripper might have:
1)"The maligant narcissist can manipulate and convince the most well respected,experianced medical professionals in the industry to sympathize with him, to be on his side"
2)"that the best trained professionals have trouble identifying the disorder"
3)"can be the smartest,most down-to-earth and loving people in society."

yours truly

[lynn cates]

colleagues

Hello Corey. Sounds like some colleagues of mine.

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

[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

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

[corey123]

Narcissism

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

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]

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

[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]

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]

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