How did he do it?

[curious4]

Serial killer

Hello Red,

I think they did come to the conclusion that they were dealing with one killer fairly early on, even if the term "serial killer" hadnīt been invented at the time.

Best wishes,
C4

[Malcolm X]

My father died of Cancer 2 years ago and when he did i threw out all my old books, i had a massive clean up, i was finished with JTR.... well so i thought.

but now i'm back here i'm relying on memory only, plus looking on this website and this website is a nightmare to find stuff quickly, there's loads of stuff missing too, especially with regards to MJK, i cant remember what, i just know it is

i very much doubt we have one killer only, in fact, it looks like the other bloke killed far more, it's about 12:5, that is if JTR stuck rigidly to his M.O/Signature.....not sure, one of these killers could easily be a catalyst for the other to start killing, but due to the revolting nature of JTR, it is quite obvious that he is totally unique and there is nobody else around that he can copy, because nobody else is as sick as him !

1....gutting victims is seen often in history, well before JTR
2....he needs to gut them to access the organs below.

this does not apply to MJK because this is way OTT, yes very true indeed, but he's indoors with hours to spend, so the horror he inflicts is directly in proportion to the time he has..... JTR has from 4am till 5.30 am inside, but only 5 mins with Eddowes and 10 seconds with Stride.

why is her heart removed ?..... yes very strange, very occult, very trophy and for the right person, it's worth a lot of money!.....the more infamous the murder is, the more her heart is worth.

Voila' little by little i'm sussing him out.

[Rubyretro]

i very much doubt we have one killer only, in fact, it looks like the other bloke killed far more,

Why are we wasting time looking for JTR then ? We should be looking for
"the other bloke"....
(I'm certain that some would say, that everything's always his fault anyway)

[Malcolm X]

Why are we wasting time looking for JTR then ? We should be looking for
"the other bloke"....
(I'm certain that some would say, that everything's always his fault anyway)

The other bloke isn't as interesting is he, plus it's too much work to investigate him as well

in fact, it could be 3 blokes, because dont forget that we have the torsos as well !

we have murders before and then after JTR, so they're quite well spread out, so it could be ONE PERSON building up to JTR then backing off from this horror afterwards, to what he once was.

it just depends how much you believe in this FBI profiling stuff etc etc, i'm not sure because quite a few serial killers switch M.O to avoid detection.

this is a huge problem for one suspect, because he must never kill again... ever and unfortunately the street murders carry on after MJK dont they.

this other killer will be at least 80 before it's safe to kill again, that is, until every copper that knows what he looks like, is either dead or too old to remember...... oh dear, yes !

but BTK stopped killing for years on end too, yes and this is just about the only example/excuse that i have, but of course; he never stopped completely did he !

[DVV]

Two killers, aaarff.
One must be Hutch.
Hutch cannot be anyone but Netley, natürlich.
Groom, coach, it's all the same, uh ?

[RedBundy13]

2 serial killers in the same year? Same city? Same neighborhood? Killing in close to the same fashion ie. with a knife.
Thats too far fetched for me. I could maybe understand that each women killed was killed by a different person every time, but even that is a long shot.
There was just too many women killed, so close in time and distance, and in remotely the same manner for me even begin to believe that.
To many similarities in the cases and just plain too many murders for them all to be coincidences. Theyre connected in my opinion.

[Rubyretro]

2 serial killers in the same year? Same city? Same neighborhood? Killing in close to the same fashion ie. with a knife.
Thats too far fetched for me. I could maybe understand that each women killed was killed by a different person every time, but even that is a long shot.
There was just too many women killed, so close in time and distance, and in remotely the same manner for me even begin to believe that.
To many similarities in the cases and just plain too many murders for them all to be coincidences. Theyre connected in my opinion.

OMG ! Logic ! (I'd started to think that it was fast disappearing from some of these threads ).

ps: I think the most interesting discussions that we should be having here, is not which victims should be discounted as being 'Jack's'
but rather which of the non-canonicals should be counted in (and for me Tabram is a cert, it is which of the others...?)

[lynn cates]

none

Hello Red.

"2 serial killers in the same year? Same city? Same neighborhood?"

No, I'd say zero serial killers. After all, Dr. Bond saw ONE victim; Sir MLM came 6 months late.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

logic

Hello Ruby.

"Logic!"

Umm, you mean reasoning? Yes indeed. Of course, any chain of reasoning--inductive or deductive--is no better than the premises assumed.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Lynn -the word is 'reasoning' if you wish.

It stands to reason that the Canonicals + Tabram were by the same serial killer.....and most probably more.

[lynn cates]

method of laying it down

Hello Ruby. Stands to reason? Well, perhaps.

Try this:

1. If JTR existed, then he killed at least 5 women in 1888. premise

2. JTR existed. premise

Conclusion: JTR killed at least 5 women in 1888. 1 & 2 modus ponens

Valid argument? Of course! Stands to reason? Indeed. Convincing regarding its conclusion? No.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

1 & 2 modus ponens

? I'm afraid I'm not an academic like you, Lynn.

can you pose your question in plain English please.

[lynn cates]

proofs

Hello Ruby. Well, no question at all. Merely a demonstration that, given a predilection for petitio principii, one can "prove" anything (ie, stands to reason).

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hello Ruby. Well, no question at all. Merely a demonstration that, given a predilection for petitio principii, one can "prove" anything (ie, stands to reason).

Your reply was lofty and superior, and not in plain English, nevertheless
I still like you (!) so I will say that my 'assumptions' are based on the statistics for murder in the given time and location and make perfect sense.

In stating that the Canonical victims, and Martha Tabram, and probably others, were all victims of the Serial Killer known as 'Jack The Ripper', I don't think that I'm putting forward anything contentious.

[Malcolm X]

Hello Ruby. Stands to reason? Well, perhaps.

Try this:

1. If JTR existed, then he killed at least 5 women in 1888. premise

2. JTR existed. premise

Conclusion: JTR killed at least 5 women in 1888. 1 & 2 modus ponens

Valid argument? Of course! Stands to reason? Indeed. Convincing regarding its conclusion? No.

Cheers.
LC

i dont understand this either..... yes JTR existed and yes it's very easy to start killing at this time and to blame JTR instead, to mask your crimes.

now did this happen ?..... not sure, but dont rule it out, i would be very careful here, because i've been around for ages and many people i know aren't sure about this either.... especially the torsos.

Sutcliffe did not kill all the women that the press said he did, someone else did as well, so take care here.