Serial Killers, A pattern???

[Septic Blue]

Special Branch Operatives, Burial Ground of the Parish Church of Christ Church Spitalfields (i.e. 'Itchy Park'), 1902

[DVV]

Phil, theory or working idea, I personally don't care, since I don't criticize it as such, but merely propose the objections that come to my mind. As everybody does.
Nothing should prevent you to answer/discuss my point about MacKenzie and Lawende.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

David,

Indeed. And quite rightly, you point that out. And on that particular part of the case, I can say that I have been concentrating a little on via research as well. Alice McKenzie's background, name, and involvement as a "ripper victim" or not. As of the time of writing, as with no doubt many points that come up, there aren't any all revealing answers to counter the argument with. But rest assured that although they haven't surfaced, doesn't mean they are to be ignored. Thats the point with a working idea. Input from outside that raises questions AGAINST the idea. I encourage them wholeheartedly.
I sometimes wish, as do many others no doubt, that I could have 100 hours in a day to do all I wanted... but one step at a time. This idea has a basis. To substantiate that basis is part of the working idea.
Perhaps others may wish to add their views and research. I encourage them as well

best wishes as always

Phil

[Phil Carter]

David,

Indeed. And quite rightly, you point that out. And on that particular part of the case, I can say that I have been concentrating a little on via research as well. Alice McKenzie's background, name, and involvement as a "ripper victim" or not. As of the time of writing, as with no doubt many points that come up, there aren't any all revealing answers to counter the argument with. But rest assured that although they haven't surfaced, doesn't mean they are to be ignored. Thats the point with a working idea. Input from outside that raises questions AGAINST the idea. I encourage them wholeheartedly.
I sometimes wish, as do many others no doubt, that I could have 100 hours in a day to do all I wanted... but one step at a time. This idea has a basis. To substantiate that basis is part of the working idea.
Perhaps others may wish to add their views and research. I encourage them as well

best wishes as always

Phil

David,

I will however like to add this one thing. I noticed on another thread (about Tumblety) the following reference made by SPE,

"....We also had the statement in the 1928 book Masters of Crime by Guy B. H. Logan that, "The murders ceased, I think, with the Miller [sic] Court one, and I am the more disposed to this view because, though the fact was was kept a close secret at the time, I know that one of Scotland Yard's best men, Inspector Andrews, was sent specially to America in December, 1888, in search of the Whitechapel fiend on the strength of important information, the nature of which was never disclosed."....."

Not that this one reference is my sole reason for my comment, but an indication of the reasoning behind it.

best wishes

Phil

[joelhall]

I am totally at a loss as to how anyone could be deluded enough to think that killing a couple of prostitutes in the East End, equates to paralyzing the Police force of London. In the wake of a Fenian uprising the British government would have abandoned those women to their fate in an instant, they would not have even given them a second thought.

...

You do not create civil unrest by murdering civilians, nor do you divide a nation by killing its people, you unite it (just as the British government would unite Ireland with the executions in the wake of the failed 1916 uprising), and certainly by 1888 the Fenians had begun to realise this. And these are Victorian Militants we are talking about here, not the Taliban. Blowing up Scotland Yard could be seen as striking at the heart of imperialism, butchering Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly most certainly could not, even in the most fervent of minds.

I can see the idea, insurgency is nothing new after all, I just cannot see what they could have hoped to achieve thats all.

precisely why would al quaeda kill civilians by crashing planes into buildings, or the ira to blow up pubs or shopping centres in mainland britain? this is not to target high profile national figures but to spread terror amongst a people - the very point of terrorism in the first place.

besides, the way in which someone carries out a crime is only due to their motive in the first place. the use of bombs is certainly not the only means employed by terrorist groups, even if it is widely employed for a certain purpose. just ask anyone who has ever served in northern ireland, (or indeed anyone from northern ireland who joined the british armed forces or even in some cases simply came to work here).

guns and knives achieve things which bombs do not. if someone wanted to kill a body and leave it in the middle of a public place to spread fear then thats what they would do. theyd also tell you that these guys were not rank amateurs either, but at times a very formidable opponent, and for the most part pretty tough.

indeed, the whitechapel murders did lead to civil unrest and a loss of confidence in the police force, especially amongst the detective branch/cid regardless of whether it was intended or not. that anyone could stalk in the shadows kill and make off without trace was bound to put the frighteners on the populace there. they also sent a pretty horrific message which spread fear amongst a populace, no matter how long it lasted.

it was also evident that the poor conditions of the east end were highlighted in the consciousness of the rest of london, which led to calls for massive social reform, or at least increased them.

the politics of london in this age was more complex than many bother to acknowledge. not overly so, but you have to admit there were lots of reforms going on, not just at national level or between countries but in local communities.

im not for one stating that i believe the fenians were involved in these killings (because i dont), only that it cannot be dismissed out of hand due to theories of 'different mos' or that it wouldnt create the terror or social upheaval that these groups intended - which as it turned out it did. maybe it did not cripple a police force, but the idea of terrorists is not always to focus on the authorities themselves, but the populace of a country. after all the bombings of civilians in world war two were not to kill off the royals, politicians and generals, but to break peoples morale, and hope. this is precisley the intention of many terrorist organisations - to show theyre angry and to try and beat people down into submission. authorities only exist due to the society they exist in. if you change that society you change the authorities. despite the way things seem, authorities are only where they are by appointment. the power of the people if it affects enough people can be quite devastating to an existing state (think of russia in world war 1, or the french revolution).

as an extra note, my dad worked in london all his life. there were certainly more bombs discovered and other criminal activities going on than ever made the news (sometimes hed see these being deactivated, and more than once heard a bomb go off nearby, especially when their offices were by canary wharf). these were not reported so as not to spread unecessary alarm. terrorists only represent a small proportion of people - the ones who are angry enough to take action. if everyone who wanted to bring doom and destruction down on us really was one of them, then we really would be in trouble. not every irish republican will join the ira, and not every muslim fanatic will become a suicide bomber, simply because not matter how angry not everyone wants to kill people indiscriminately.

terrorism by its very nature is no measure of pre-planning intelligence by the perperators. the idea is to spread terror - fear and panic - amongst the targets. its a message of anger, not politics. blowing things up is simply a tool, which attracts attention towards itself and certainly makes people take note. a little like ripped up bodies in public places.

the irish republicans definitely do not only use explosives, but all manner of ways of killing targets - snipers, hitmen, even gangs of teenagers chucking bricks and lighting cars on fire, and the occaisional execution via gun or knife, not only to achieve objectives but to voice anger. many other types of full or semi-organised criminal gang employ similar methods, and some are well known for leaving bodies as a warning, or simply to claim their territory in the face of the police.

youre also wrong in certain points you make. to say that the uk has never had faith in its police is a vast over-generalisation - some people do have faith in them, others not. and it is not possible to please everyone all of the time.

needless to say if people didnt have faith in them they would not bother to call them in the first place, and the sheer number of complaints made, not just for major crimes, every year surely indicates that trust is placed in them to help to some degree, otherwise why waste their time with comparatively trivial incidents, let alone larger ones? one group of people does not reflect the whole of society, and even amongst one particular group there is not always consensus.

secondly, it is not true that british intelligence services always infiltrate terrorist groups - sometimes they do, sometimes not. if they always did many of the large atrocities which have occurred in the past could surely have been averted? besides were talking about 1888, and i doubt very much that the intelligence services of the time had had very much practice in anti-terrorist roles, and covert operations. there are cases also, where new factions have appeared from nowhere - noone even knew they existed let alone thought to infiltrate, until they have struck.

its perfectly possible that fenians could have been involved in the killings. its perfectly possible it was a serial killer, a criminal gang, or numerous other theories. but over-generalisation is not a great counter attack.

[c.d.]

Not that I believe this but I will just throw it out there...the Fenians wouldn't necessarily have to do the killings but they could stir up unrest by getting the newspapers to sensationalize the killings.

c.d.

[joelhall]

a very interesting point. in actual fact the oxford handbook of criminology only mentions jack the ripper once (second edition, oxford university press, 1997, p 62). clive emsley mentions the murders whilst explaining the way in which newspapers and magazines would exploit violent crime in order to sell copies ... 'or for some crusading, legislative purpose. the image of jack the ripper is a good example of the former. ... the panic about the ripper spread far and wide both geographically and socially.'

incidentally, wasnt it a couple of journalists who are believed to have written a good proportion of the ripper letters?

[DVV]

The best thing a group of Fenian/Socialists rippers would had to do, if all these theories have some ground, was to kill in various places over London, then over England and Great Britain.
The Ripper didn't kill in October, then killed indoors.
He was an individual with limited means, who perfectly knew how risky was his business.

Amitiés,
David

[c.d.]

Hi Joel,

I was watching a program on the stock market collapse of 1929 which brought on the Depression in America. A group of four or five wealthy individuals would buy a large number of shares in a stock. They would then pay newspapers to report that a large number of shares had been purchased by "people in the know." Regular people would read that and purchase shares themselves. This made the price of the stock go up. The newspapers would tout that so that more people would buy it and drive the price even higher. When the price was way higher than it should be the original group would sell their shares and the stock price would plummet. Apparently this was not an uncommon practice and a number of the newspapers would be involved in it.

c.d.

[perrymason]

The best thing a group of Fenian/Socialists rippers would had to do, if all these theories have some ground, was to kill in various places over London, then over England and Great Britain.
The Ripper didn't kill in October, then killed indoors.
He was an individual with limited means, who perfectly knew how risky was his business.

Amitiés,
David

Why would you assume that if Fenians were involved the killings were simply random murders, that might have occurred anywhere across London?

Im not aware that the killings as some kind of "campaign of terror" in the East End has been suggested, nor that the recent suggestions infer all the alleged Ripper killings might have Fenian based motivations....I do believe that the climate in the east End from 1887 through 1889 had a distinctly socio-political upheaval scent to it...and within that context these Ripper events might have been of some real value to a radical anarchist movement. When we know for a fact that political bombings and assassination attempt existed in 87 and 88, set against the political structures locally, Its not that hard to surmise the events, the fear and the attention could be "used" in some subversive manner.

Best regards

[corey123]

Mike,

Im sorry, no offense to you or Lynn,but your theorys about fenians are sounding the more impossible the more you speak about them. Really why would terrorists kill two or three women?? They NEVER heard anything about the fenians and IF they did they would most likely be killed simpily, not overkill. The way they were killed was to creat fear from a personaly vendretta the killer had with prostitutes. Im sorry but your theory makes NO sense. I even read that you are trying to say Dr.T was a Fenian. SERIOUSLY?On what claims? That he moved away to america after the murder of Mary Kelly and a senior offical went to tract him down? Does that make someone a Fenian now?

Good lord.

[Sox]

precisely why would al quaeda kill civilians by crashing planes into buildings, or the ira to blow up pubs or shopping centres in mainland britain?.

He isn't talking about modern terrorist tactics, he is talking about the Fenian Brotherhood in 1888. These Militants focused on freeing their brothers from prison, targeting establishment buildings & establishment figures, what they did not do was make war on civilians. Those tactics would not begin to be readily employed until 1916 & not by The Fenians.

I do believe that the climate in the east End from 1887 through 1889 had a distinctly socio-political upheaval scent to it.

Almost every major city in England has had this kind of climate in some degree, for almost as long as there have been socialists. Irish freedom fighters have, over the years, been responsible for many an atrocity, but in 1888 you are talking about the kind of men that followed the flag up to Marye's Heights, or stormed the line at Bloody Lane.

'Terrorists' (for want of a better word) in 1888 were still idealists, first and foremost, they were not yet the extremists of later years. I can readily believe that they may have used the press (as the socialists did) but I find the idea that Eddowes/Kelly were killed as informants in such a way as to make them seem part of a series of brutal murders, to be extremely far fetched. On a par with the Royal Heir theory, sorry but that is my opinion...but good luck with it all the same.

[DVV]

Why would you assume that if Fenians were involved the killings were simply random murders, that might have occurred anywhere across London?

Im not aware that the killings as some kind of "campaign of terror" in the East End has been suggested, nor that the recent suggestions infer all the alleged Ripper killings might have Fenian based motivations....I do believe that the climate in the east End from 1887 through 1889 had a distinctly socio-political upheaval scent to it...and within that context these Ripper events might have been of some real value to a radical anarchist movement. When we know for a fact that political bombings and assassination attempt existed in 87 and 88, set against the political structures locally, Its not that hard to surmise the events, the fear and the attention could be "used" in some subversive manner.

Best regards

Hi Mike,

I wasn't reffering to your "theory" especially... rather to what seems to predominate in some current discussions (and whatever my views, I'm glad to read and participate, as always).

I agree that the political background is interesting and has to be taken in consideration, although I'm still convinced that the Ripper was a lone serial killer.

Amitiés mon cher (pas la peine de se fâcher pour si peu!),
David

[corey123]

David,

I too agree that it was a serial murderer.

Mike,

I have some issues with your theory, as you may know. Some questions I need answered.
1) If you are saying that Kate and Kelly were killed by the Fenians, why take the organs? Fenians never had a problem revieling themselves before a fenian attack so why try to confuse them now? If they were killed by the fenians, and they were part of this anti-fenian opperation as you suggest, then the police would already know their deaths were by the fenians. So again, why hide it?
2)How do you explain the other "Ripper style" murders AFTER Kelly?
3)Why would they make Kellys murder seem different than the rest? It was different, more carnage than precise mutilation. How would they know this type of killer would increase his mutalent violence as the murders progressed? As far as I know, they would'nt.

Phil,

You asked me to continue to question your idea. Here it is.

thanks.

[corey123]

Answers

Guys, Mike,Lynn,Phil,Joel.The Fenian gang. Just kidding.

Anyways, I would like my questions answered when you have the time.

Thanks