Fuelled by publicity?

[kensei]

Whoa, that would be a whole new idea. Two serial killers who operated simultaneously and knew each other? Not as partners apparently, like the Hillside Stranglers, but as what? Friendly competitors?

[Phil H]

In Mei Trow's book on the Torso murders, he hypothesises that a cat's meat factory might have been a suitable place to hack apart the bodies. Trow then suggests that the body parts could plausibly have been transported on the barrow used to take cat's meat to shops.

What was the front room of 29 Hanbury St used for? To sell cat's meat.

For my own part, I have always thought that "Jack" must have been in the backyard of No29 before the night he killed Annie Chapman there. Why? Because it is very dangerous to enter a place you cannot see, and that yard lay beyond 2 doors along a narrow passage.

I think Annie led "Jack" there, but he had been there before. Why not when delivering cat's meat - perhaps he used the toilet in the yard.

All speculation and wholly without foundation, but I find it an intriguing concept.

Phil

[kensei]

Interesting theory, one I had not heard before. I've imagined that the torso murders- like the Black Dahlia- would have had to have been done indoors in some perfectly private place, either the killer's home or some place he had access to for some length of time without fear of discovery.

But hey, I think we might have strayed from the topic about publicity. To bring it back around, I think the torso killer must have been going for maximum publicity by leaving a partial body at the construction site of police headquarters.

[lynn cates]

Let's face it.

Hello Phil.

"was Eddowes' face deliberately mutilated (as Chris george suggests) or were the cuts on the cheeks a side effect of an attempt to remove the nose as I have seen convincingly argued here on Casebook?"

I agree that this explains the "V" shaped cuts. But what about the slit eye lids?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

The cuts to the eye-lids intrigue me too - though I would not consider them "mutilations" - a quibble I know.

One possibility I have not discounted is that Eddowes did indeed know "Jack", met him, and he used his knife on her eyelids to signify that she should not have been so inquisitive. The attempt to remove her nose may have been to punish her for being "nosey" or sticking her nose in where it was not wanted.

Phil

[lynn cates]

waning publicity

Hello Bolo. Of course, there is a gap between Chapman and the "Double Event" as well.

As for Ripper researchers and the C5, you might look at the theorising of Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow. They are not strong proponents of the C5.

Finally, to return to the notion of publicity, it seems that both the "Double Event" and the "MJK" episode occurred on a WANING of publicity.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

on series

Hello Kensei.

"I've seriously wondered if JTR was actually responsible for much more than he's been credited with, if only for the reason that these kinds of behaviors are extreme abberations (and thank God for that), and multiples at the same place and time are just statistically unlikely."

True enough. But consider a series of killings from K1--Kn. If I wished to kill, say, my wife, what would prevent my doing away with her and using the publicity of the OTHER killings to work in my favour? (Think Brother Cadfael in "One Corpse too Many.")

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

see no evil, hear no evil

Hello Phil.

"The attempt to remove her nose may have been to punish her for being "nosy" or sticking her nose in where it was not wanted."

Agreed. And the ears? Perhaps, "You heard what you ought not"?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

And the ears? Perhaps, "You heard what you ought not"?

I'm not convinced that the slight injury to an ear wasn't collateral damage. But who knows.

Phil

[K-453]

The time gap could explain the worse mutilations on Mary Kelly. More rage built up.

[K-453]

The theory „Jack“ was fuelled by publicity, is contradictory to the theory he killed prostitutes “because no one would miss them”.


I was just reading through the FBI profile from 1988 by John E. Douglas and found this:

“It is my opinion that this series of homicides was not perpetrated by someone who set up a challenge against law enforcement. While the killer knew he would be receiving national as well as international publicity, this was not his primary motivation.”

And:

“Jack the Ripper believed the homicides were justified and he was only removing perishable items - - who were like garbage.”

[Phil H]

The time gap could explain the worse mutilations on Mary Kelly. More rage built up.

But what if MJK were killed by a different person to "Jack"? There is no "gap" to be explained, or in which the killer built up "rage".

Other than contempraneous belief and conventional wisdom, there is absolutely no reason that MJK HAD to have been killed by JtR. [I'm not arguing that as an absolute - I don't know who killed her - butI have no assurance it was "Jack".]

Have you considered that the "worse mutilations" might simply be an attempt by someone who had READ about the Ripper murders in the press, but NOT seen any of the bodies, to reproduce that killer's MO. Thus it could have been an attempt to disguise an individual killing as part of the series.

Of course, I understand why prople WANT MJK to be a victim of JtR - it makes him a more shocking killer; it is simpler; it fits their theories; it creates a larger number of victims on which to base alleged trends etc. But those reasons do not make it so.

If (say) Barnett or Fleming, a Fenian or someone else (not JtR) killed Mary, then the "gap" means nothing.

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

The theory „Jack“ was fuelled by publicity, is contradictory to the theory he killed prostitutes “because no one would miss them”.


I was just reading through the FBI profile from 1988 by John E. Douglas and found this:

“It is my opinion that this series of homicides was not perpetrated by someone who set up a challenge against law enforcement. While the killer knew he would be receiving national as well as international publicity, this was not his primary motivation.”

And:

“Jack the Ripper believed the homicides were justified and he was only removing perishable items - - who were like garbage.”

I personally think the murders were done because the murderer got a thrill from the murders and mutilation but we don't know that for certain.

Nor do we know for a fact that Jack was fuelled by the publicity his murders generated. We can theorize that he was but we don't know it for sure.

Neither do we know, as Phil H says, which murders were done by the same hand. We can think some of the murders were done by the same person but we don't know it as a fact.

This is the fascination and the frustration of this very cold case.

All the best

Chris

[lynn cates]

well put

Hello Phil. My position vis-a-vis the "MJK" murder could not have been stated any better.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Other than contempraneous belief and conventional wisdom, there is absolutely no reason that MJK HAD to have been killed by JtR. [I'm not arguing that as an absolute - I don't know who killed her - butI have no assurance it was "Jack".]

Have you considered that the "worse mutilations" might simply be an attempt by someone who had READ about the Ripper murders in the press, but NOT seen any of the bodies, to reproduce that killer's MO. Thus it could have been an attempt to disguise an individual killing as part of the series.

Of course, I understand why prople WANT MJK to be a victim of JtR - it makes him a more shocking killer; it is simpler; it fits their theories; it creates a larger number of victims on which to base alleged trends etc. But those reasons do not make it so.

If (say) Barnett or Fleming, a Fenian or someone else (not JtR) killed Mary, then the "gap" means nothing.

Conventional wisdom is the key. While it certainly is just a theory, it is plausible for most because it does fit in a pattern of unusual murders that were extremely rare and unlikely to be duplicated to such an extreme. Copycat or not, it is a very rare individual that does something like this. Mary's abdominal flaps were removed in a similar manner as Chapman's. Organs were extracted with the uterus, kidney and one breast placed under the victim's head... along with the other obvious connections such as the throat cut, victimology...etc.

One can say that Barnett, Fleming or a Fenian killed Mary, but there's not a shred of evidence that one of them did. There is good evidence that the same person that killed, at least Chapman and Eddowes,may have killed Mary Kelly also. It it not necessarily wanting Mary to be a victim of 'Jack', but its the best theory with the evidence at hand.