Example of a serial killer

[caz]

Hello Michael,

The only thing that you have demonstrated is that one particular serial killer in Toronto was consistent in the way that he killed. In no way have you demonstrated that therefore ALL serial killers must act in a similar manner.

You did get the "ad nauseum" part right though.

c.d.

No he didn't. It's spelled "ad nauseam".

[Sam Flynn]

Ad nauseum [sic]k

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for the corrections on a spelling issue. Using the recent case in Toronto to illustrate my point about fixed characteristics isn't intended as a message that I believe all serial killers exhibit repetitive characteristics, its just to point out that some do. Based on that possibility alone, I feel its bad form to simply assume murders that are unlike the preceding or subsequent murders are just anomalies but still connected by the same killer. They may well be indications that other killers are possible.

The Canonical Group concept relies on a foundation of belief, not evidence. The evidence itself isn't sufficient to connect the five murders to one person. So, what could be wrong with approaching this mystery from the point of view that some murders within the assumed group should be removed from it, based on the "anomalies".

If a revised approach creates a Canonical Group of 3 as most probably connected and supported within the known evidence, we have a whole different landscape, with more that 3 times that number during that period that were committed by others. I think that kind of baseline will prevent the speculation that seems to be gaining traction, that not only the Five Canonicals but a whole variety of other murders were committed by one man,.. who apparently just stabs some, just poisons some, slits some throats, mutilates some corpses and dismembers some.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for the corrections on a spelling issue. Using the recent case in Toronto to illustrate my point about fixed characteristics isn't intended as a message that I believe all serial killers exhibit repetitive characteristics, its just to point out that some do. Based on that possibility alone, I feel its bad form to simply assume murders that are unlike the preceding or subsequent murders are just anomalies but still connected by the same killer. They may well be indications that other killers are possible.

The Canonical Group concept relies on a foundation of belief, not evidence. The evidence itself isn't sufficient to connect the five murders to one person. So, what could be wrong with approaching this mystery from the point of view that some murders within the assumed group should be removed from it, based on the "anomalies".

If a revised approach creates a Canonical Group of 3 as most probably connected and supported within the known evidence, we have a whole different landscape, with more that 3 times that number during that period that were committed by others. I think that kind of baseline will prevent the speculation that seems to be gaining traction, that not only the Five Canonicals but a whole variety of other murders were committed by one man,.. who apparently just stabs some, just poisons some, slits some throats, mutilates some corpses and dismembers some.

Its always interesting to see that people don't dispute common sense here....although that's not always the case.

To re-start the discussion, using the above, a serial killers is someone who is guilty of killing 2 or more people, so even with my post above, its pretty clear that there was a serial killer working in the East End during that period. That usually evolves into a discussion of 2 or more serial killers working simultaneously. For me, other than a "series" of Torso murders and the likelihood that one man or group was responsible, that needn't be the case here. If we imagine that Polly and Annie were definitely connected by killer, thereby making them 2 of the serial killer victims, there are enough variances within the remaining Canonical Victims list to still leave room for 3 different people, or groups, as killers.

My point being....how much would perspectives change on these murders if a much smaller C group, maybe just 2 victims, is broadly presumed to be by one man. How would people approach investigating the remaining crimes? Lets leave presumption to a minimum and carve this C group down to a more evidence based number. I don't think anyone would argue too strongly against linking Polly and Annie, but many of us disagree on what happened from that point on. Maybe its because many of us still cling to a model that has a magnet like killer figure with remarkable range from skilled to amateur and with differing motivations.

[Takod]

The Canonical Group concept relies on a foundation of belief, not evidence.

It takes more belief and scepticism of the evidence to suggest that there was more than one person running around subduing prostitutes, and then cutting the throat all the way back to the vertebrae than it does to accept that this is not ordinary behaviour - the possible likelihood that there was more than one person running around, even a copycat, committing exactly the same crime, in the same time and in the same places and with the same MO simply beggars belief.

[Michael W Richards]

It takes more belief and scepticism of the evidence to suggest that there was more than one person running around subduing prostitutes, and then cutting the throat all the way back to the vertebrae than it does to accept that this is not ordinary behaviour - the possible likelihood that there was more than one person running around, even a copycat, committing exactly the same crime, in the same time and in the same places and with the same MO simply beggars belief.

But we don't have copycat like crimes in the remaining C5, do we? Liz Stride is murdered...that's it, Kate Eddowes murder greatly resembles the first 2 but with some additional unexplained components which may or may not be symbolic, and Mary is killed unlike any other victim, both in circumstantial and physical evidence. Despite the attempts to create some bridge between these killings and the Torso murders, it seems to me that we have a serial killer who predates the Ripper, in that same area. The cuts to the vertebrae are very important, in the first 2 cases it appears similar technique and a double cut are present. The depth and repetition of the cuts indicate the killer sought swift incapacitation and perhaps maximum bloodletting. There is evidence of 2 cuts with Kate, but who can be sure what order of cuts took place in room 13?

The Canonical Five are not identical murders in any way, and that alone doesn't mean they weren't connected by killer, but when the circumstantial evidence, and a few other unsolved murders of youngish women in the area during that same year and into the next are factored in, it changes the possibilities.

[Takod]

But we don't have copycat like crimes in the remaining C5, do we? Liz Stride is murdered...that's it, Kate Eddowes murder greatly resembles the first 2 but with some additional unexplained components which may or may not be symbolic, and Mary is killed unlike any other victim, both in circumstantial and physical evidence. Despite the attempts to create some bridge between these killings and the Torso murders, it seems to me that we have a serial killer who predates the Ripper, in that same area. The cuts to the vertebrae are very important, in the first 2 cases it appears similar technique and a double cut are present. The depth and repetition of the cuts indicate the killer sought swift incapacitation and perhaps maximum bloodletting. There is evidence of 2 cuts with Kate, but who can be sure what order of cuts took place in room 13?

The Canonical Five are not identical murders in any way, and that alone doesn't mean they weren't connected by killer, but when the circumstantial evidence, and a few other unsolved murders of youngish women in the area during that same year and into the next are factored in, it changes the possibilities.

They're identical if you ascribe to Wescott's theory that the throats were stabbed and then ripped as I do.

[Michael W Richards]

They're identical if you ascribe to Wescott's theory that the throats were stabbed and then ripped as I do.

I don't, and there is no indication of stab marks to the throat in Pollys case, there are incisions, ...incisions are mentioned in Annies case, incision in Liz's case, cuts in Kates case, and in Marys case the damage is so horrific that its impossible to be sure, but only cuts are mentioned to the throat. What Mr Westcott is missing in his theory is that the women were subdued without any appreciable noise, a stab to the throat wouldn't disable the victims ability to make some noises...a deep cut would. I believe the notion is so that Martha might be added to a Ripper list, something that is for my money, already far too long.

[Takod]

I don't, and there is no indication of stab marks to the throat in Pollys case, there are incisions, ...incisions are mentioned in Annies case, incision in Liz's case, cuts in Kates case, and in Marys case the damage is so horrific that its impossible to be sure, but only cuts are mentioned to the throat. What Mr Westcott is missing in his theory is that the women were subdued without any appreciable noise, a stab to the throat wouldn't disable the victims ability to make some noises...a deep cut would. I believe the notion is so that Martha might be added to a Ripper list, something that is for my money, already far too long.

He's not missing that in his theory, he suggests that they were first subdued by asphyxiation and then what happened to their throat happened upon the ground. Using a hand rather than a ligature as a garotte. This is what he uses to explain the partially protruding tongues.

[Michael W Richards]

He's not missing that in his theory, he suggests that they were first subdued by asphyxiation and then what happened to their throat happened upon the ground. Using a hand rather than a ligature as a garotte. This is what he uses to explain the partially protruding tongues.

Elizabeth Stride was choked, or garroted, with her own scarf. The fact it was twisted secures that. Although I don't believe that was done to the extreme, I think she was still conscious when she has a knife run across her throat. Once. Annie may well have spoken before succumbing. The proximity to potential witnesses means that many of these murders were very quietly done. Unless this man is some sort of brute, and capable of choking someone by hand and not making sounds, even flailing arms, part of the experience, he would be up against some formidable opponents in Kate for example, or Mary. Even Liz. These had to be tough women. I believe the fact that Polly was overtly drunk and Annie was evidently visibly sick contributed to the killers choices. I don't believe he risked a struggle, but nor do I believe he was a brute physically.

[Sam Flynn]

he would be up against some formidable opponents in Kate for example.

I'm not so sure. Whilst seemingly a spirited individual, bless her, Eddowes was only 5ft tall, and the post-mortem photographs show that she was extremely thin.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm not so sure. Whilst seemingly a spirited individual, bless her, Eddowes was only 5ft tall, and the post-mortem photographs show that she was extremely thin.

Might just be the result of a poor hop picking season Sam. Her friends described her as having a "

fierce temper" , and I suspect that living at Cooneys, in that area at that time, kept her on her defensive.

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed, but she was built like a bird, perhaps explaining her nickname "Chick". No match for a determined man.

[Michael W Richards]

Indeed, but she was built like a bird, perhaps explaining her nickname "Chick". No match for a determined man.

You know she was likely at least a bit diminished at the time...with something of a hangover one might imagine. Down the road, perhaps Mary could be categorized as somewhat physically compromised as well...she might have been hungover when she was attacked.

This line of thinking makes me wonder about the state of Polly and Annie...perhaps its not that they in particular were physically compromised, its that the majority of the women out at night were...hunger, lack of sleep, booze...

[Abby Normal]

Elizabeth Stride was choked, or garroted, with her own scarf. The fact it was twisted secures that. Although I don't believe that was done to the extreme, I think she was still conscious when she has a knife run across her throat. Once. Annie may well have spoken before succumbing. The proximity to potential witnesses means that many of these murders were very quietly done. Unless this man is some sort of brute, and capable of choking someone by hand and not making sounds, even flailing arms, part of the experience, he would be up against some formidable opponents in Kate for example, or Mary. Even Liz. These had to be tough women. I believe the fact that Polly was overtly drunk and Annie was evidently visibly sick contributed to the killers choices. I don't believe he risked a struggle, but nor do I believe he was a brute physically.

I would imagine that the ripper was probably a brute physically-most of the witnesses describe him as stout, broad shouldered, broad face etc., and to be able to overpower and quickly kill someone with your bare hands is no easy feat. He apparently had a job and was a laborer of some sort, involving physical work, is not unlikely IMHO. I imagine him probably having the physicality of a wrestler-quickly subduing his victims and bringing them to the ground. plus the women were drunk or sick and impoverished so not in the best shape themselves.