Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Example of a serial killer

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    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.
    The problem I have with that is that would women continue voluntarily taking a menacing type stranger into a dark corner after the first few murders? Maybe the wrestler type might befriend them, as I think Blotchy does with Mary. But I think that if you remove BSM from Berner Street...which is a prudent call considering the way that story disappears, and if Blotchy is someone that Mary thought she could trust, then we only have sailor man, and he isn't to my mind a brutish kind of figure.

    Plus, the fellow who killed Polly and Annie must have just strolled away inconspicuously, we have no sightings about someone fleeing. This killer seems to have thought things out a bit, more a fox than a bear I think.
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-20-2019, 09:39 AM.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • #32
      The purpose of starting this thread is to discuss how consistent a killer can be. The case I used to illustrate my point is a local case in the courts where at least 7 victims were killed in much the same fashion, and then dismembered and buried. This kind of murderer, to me, is likely the same kind we see in the Torso murders before and during the Ripper scare. He has a fetish...a preference. Taking the victims apart isn't just for easy portability, based on the size of some of the packages found, ..its a part of his fetish. Like mutilating the abdomens of the women he kills just after he makes a severe double stroke cut to the throat is The Ripper fetish. I don't see that kind of killer even bothering to kill unless he is likely to achieve his objectives.

      Most would agree that Liz Stride is included in the 5 due to a second, more Ripper like murder being committed shortly thereafter. Assuming that Kate is killed by Polly and Annies Killer and Liz is not, then why does someone who kills twice within 2 weeks wait almost a month? And if Liz isn't killed by Jack, and we know Mr Brown slices Mrs Browns throat on that same night, then we have a Torso killer, a Ripper, and Strides killer as unknown and essentially unconnected by any evidence. That's 3, with 2 of them demonstrating desires to kill more than one person.

      Most modern crime investigators believe that at any given time there are dozens of serial killers working simultaneously, surely 2 or 3 here doesn't boggle the mind.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        why does someone who kills twice within 2 weeks wait almost a month?
        The hugely reinforced uniformed and plain-clothes police presence might have had something to do with it. The recruitment drive was already building up steam by the night of Kate's murder, when it's conceivable that the killer came close to being caught/seen by a policeman on more than one occasion (by Watkins, Harvey and possibly Long). Such potential close shaves might have given him food for thought.

        Then again, it's quite probable that he went out hunting regularly between the 1st October and 8th November, but was unable to find a suitable victim under the right circumstances. There's no reason to believe that this wasn't also the case in the days between the earlier murders, and the likelihood of a fruitless expedition could only have increased as the panic increased, people got more savvy/vigilant and the police boosted their numbers.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          it's quite probable that he went out hunting regularly between the 1st October and 8th November, but was unable to find a suitable victim under the right circumstances. There's no reason to believe that this wasn't also the case in the days between the earlier murders.
          Hrmm... isn't there usually a short cooling off period after serial killers murder someone? As far as I've seen serial killing is kind of like jerking off (sorry to use this example), but once the itch is scratched there's a time where everything goes quiet and the need has been sated.

          I don't doubt that he wasn't out and about looking for people after this cooling-off period had stopped, so it doesn't make a difference even if what I've proposed is true.

          The only difference I can see that might come from it is at the height of the scare, whilst "morale" was high, and people were on their most alert were the least likely times to have encountered him on the hunt, which may have accounted for possible complacency.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Takod View Post

            Hrmm... isn't there usually a short cooling off period after serial killers murder someone? As far as I've seen serial killing is kind of like jerking off (sorry to use this example), but once the itch is scratched there's a time where everything goes quiet and the need has been sated.

            I don't doubt that he wasn't out and about looking for people after this cooling-off period had stopped, so it doesn't make a difference even if what I've proposed is true.

            The only difference I can see that might come from it is at the height of the scare, whilst "morale" was high, and people were on their most alert were the least likely times to have encountered him on the hunt, which may have accounted for possible complacency.
            If the killer only began killing with Polly, then you have the duration between kills we might expect. Within a 2 week span. The idea he was out looking and didn't find a likely prospect assumes that he didn't have any aborted attacks, because we don't have those. I doubt he went out searching unless a completion was probable. There wasn't any shortage of women still working the streets during this time, many still had to go out.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              If the killer only began killing with Polly, then you have the duration between kills we might expect. Within a 2 week span. The idea he was out looking and didn't find a likely prospect assumes that he didn't have any aborted attacks, because we don't have those. I doubt he went out searching unless a completion was probable. There wasn't any shortage of women still working the streets during this time, many still had to go out.
              You can include Tabram and Smith in that and have it still make some sort of sense, yes.

              But we don't know what the killer's abortion policy was (please no literal) - you can't just go somewhere dark with a potential victim and then be like "oh there's people here..." or "that person's watching" and then call the whole thing off, if anything that would be strange. - unless of course you gave them money anyway and claimed shyness, in which case they'd be happy one way or the other - and then again, they're likely to go somewhere nice and dark with you again should the need arise.

              Stride could be taken as one "aborted victim", since I agree with the profile insofar as the mutilations were the primary intention of the attacks.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Takod View Post

                You can include Tabram and Smith in that and have it still make some sort of sense, yes.

                But we don't know what the killer's abortion policy was (please no literal) - you can't just go somewhere dark with a potential victim and then be like "oh there's people here..." or "that person's watching" and then call the whole thing off, if anything that would be strange. - unless of course you gave them money anyway and claimed shyness, in which case they'd be happy one way or the other - and then again, they're likely to go somewhere nice and dark with you again should the need arise.

                Stride could be taken as one "aborted victim", since I agree with the profile insofar as the mutilations were the primary intention of the attacks.
                Smith yes..Tabram no. Its pretty obvious to me that a soldier carrying a pen knife got angry with her and in a frenzy, stabbed away. He didn't target organs, although he hit some, and he may have been trained to do so, but the individual stabs were not intended to definitively end life. One throat cut would have done that. The bayonet was a stab intended to end life, and if the soldier had the bayonet with him, he probably wouldn't have used the pen knife at all. A second person ended that attack with the bayonet...just like the second soldier waiting for his friend who was off with a "woman". Soldiers were permitted to wear bayonets on Bank Holidays.

                There is no evidence whatsoever that Strides killer sought, wanted, desired to do anything but what he did. So any speculation about interruptions or abortive attacks is just 100% unsupported speculation.
                Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-20-2019, 04:49 PM.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                  The problem I have with that is that would women continue voluntarily taking a menacing type stranger into a dark corner after the first few murders? Maybe the wrestler type might befriend them, as I think Blotchy does with Mary. But I think that if you remove BSM from Berner Street...which is a prudent call considering the way that story disappears, and if Blotchy is someone that Mary thought she could trust, then we only have sailor man, and he isn't to my mind a brutish kind of figure.

                  Plus, the fellow who killed Polly and Annie must have just strolled away inconspicuously, we have no sightings about someone fleeing. This killer seems to have thought things out a bit, more a fox than a bear I think.
                  HI MR

                  The problem I have with that is that would women continue voluntarily taking a menacing type stranger into a dark corner after the first few murders
                  I said nothing about being "menacing" just a powerful man. Im sure he was actually quite charming.

                  But I think that if you remove BSM from Berner Street...which is a prudent call considering the way that story disappears, and if Blotchy is someone that Mary thought she could trust, then we only have sailor man, and he isn't to my mind a brutish kind of figure.
                  Theres absolutely no reason to exclude BS man and besides he wasn't the only one described as short and stout. (ie-powerfully built).

                  This killer seems to have thought things out a bit, more a fox than a bear I think
                  IMHO he was crafty as a fox and strong like a bear. : )
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                    HI MR



                    I said nothing about being "menacing" just a powerful man. Im sure he was actually quite charming.



                    Theres absolutely no reason to exclude BS man and besides he wasn't the only one described as short and stout. (ie-powerfully built).



                    IMHO he was crafty as a fox and strong like a bear. : )
                    OK. I can see someone strong, a skinny butcher could be like that, BSM is a person mentioned in a story that we must conclude has no relevance to the question of how Liz Stride died...someone seen assaulting the victim just before she has her throat cut should be, if the story was believed or found to be truthful,...so, there isnt really any BSM man as far as the Inquest is concerned, and on the last point, I can see both of those too. I also can see someone out for the thrill....killing and cutting someone in the open air, on a street or just off one, could only be done by someone who also got a rush from the danger of the act.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                      Smith yes..Tabram no. Its pretty obvious to me that a soldier carrying a pen knife ...
                      Unfortunately I'm going to need more than a paragraph to be persuaded exactly why it's obvious. What's obvious to you is apparently not obvious to me. With people like George Chapman living at George Yard at the time.

                      Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                      The problem I have with that is that would women continue voluntarily taking a menacing type stranger into a dark corner after the first few murders
                      Who says anything other than the last few seconds of their lives that they may have felt menaced? Again, I call upon Wescott's wonderful theory that once in the dark corner the attack started under the guise of being robbed to encourage compliance and hope in the victim - "If I just hand over my things, I can be safe"

                      Besides, I don't think you're giving the women enough credit here, there's a level of excitement and thrill around toying with death, much the same reason we as people like rollercoaster rides. I'm not saying that this would have continued throughout the whole event, and upon recognition of their imminent mortality any excitement would have been quelled by abject fear, but for the near-misses or nights when nothing happened at all, combined with the gossip (as women so like to do) combined with the feeling of (this would never happen to me) must have made it all rather more interesting than the mundane necessity which it was normally in their day to day.

                      I think it's wrong to discount this element, because if these women were safety and security first then odds are they would never have been found alone in a dark and secluded place with no witnesses. And by this I mean they would have taken their business, assuming it was prostitution, to slightly more frequented areas, even at the risk of being interrupted, and especially by police.

                      The only possible objection to this that I can see is "But why would they do that, the threat was real" - and the clear answer is that people in desperate situations make reckless decisions out of necessity, this is merely icing on the cake. I think anyone objecting this is discounting these women's decision making; discounting the killer's ability to make them feel safe and secure; discounting how these women must have interacted with their friends at the height of the scare, made jokes, made light of it; and endured.

                      The idea that they were huddled together like hens in fear of a fox in the coop is discounting women entirely and has it's place in fiction, not fact.

                      My point is that it's far more likely that the killer could have joked to one of these women that they would upon sunrise surely be dead and still taken them to darkest, most witness free place and actually killed them than it is that such a joke would have immediately sent off flags in the mind and they'd go and get someone else. ESPECIALLY at the height of the scare because the JOKE HAS CONTEXT.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Takod View Post
                        What's obvious to you is apparently not obvious to me. With people like George Chapman living at George Yard at the time.
                        Klosowski didn't move to George Yard (strictly-speaking, the nearby White Hart) until some two years after Tabram's murder. Indeed, there is some evidence that he hadn't even moved to Whitechapel at that stage, but was still based further east in a different district entirely.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          Klosowski didn't move to George Yard (strictly-speaking, the nearby White Hart) until some two years after Tabram's murder. Indeed, there is some evidence that he hadn't even moved to Whitechapel at that stage, but was still based further east in a different district entirely.
                          Boo! Well that's what happens when I get some of my information from the podcasts~

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Takod View Post
                            Boo! Well that's what happens when I get some of my information from the podcasts~
                            Keep taking the podcasts! Unless they're really old, the information on them will often be more up-to-date than you'll find in books or on Wikipedia. And don't worry - the myth that Klosowski lived in the White Hart in 1888 is still widely held, even though it stems from the faulty memory of Wolff Levisohn, witness at Klosowski's trial nearly 15 years later.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Takod View Post

                              Unfortunately I'm going to need more than a paragraph to be persuaded exactly why it's obvious. What's obvious to you is apparently not obvious to me. With people like George Chapman living at George Yard at the time.
                              The evidence in Martha Tabrams murder is that she was stabbed repeatedly with a knife resembling a "pen-knife"..36 times...and then she was stabbed once in the breast by something like a bayonet. We know soldiers were out that night, we know that some travelled in pairs, and at least on soldier was hanging around while his mate was off with a girl, we know that soldiers could carry bayonets legally on Bank Holidays, we know that she wasn't cut, and we know that if someone had 2 weapons, 1 small and 1 large, then if he intended to kill someone he would likely use the large one. The scenario suggests Martha was with someone who got uncontrollably angry with her, or women in general, and as a result she was stabbed repeatedly in a fit of rage with a knife he had in his pocket. A second soldier, likely looking for his mate, came across the scene and knew immediately the woman wouldn't survive. The bayonet stab is essentially a mercy killing in my opinion.

                              Again, you are free to buy into any speculation that seems to make sense to you, but I don't see any evidence at all that any Canonical was robbed, and I don't see any evidence that Martha was ripped. So I see no need to marry her, by killer, with any Canonical victim. There have been many people suggesting things that would make a prolonged series by one man more palatable to their own particular tastes, including suggesting that someone who just stabbed Martha was also the same man that killed 2 women in a very specific manner, in nearly identical fashion, and also excised a uterus nearly intact, in near darkness, just over a month later.

                              I think your explanation for why the women wouldn't fear someone who joked about killing them is weak, and it flies in the face of the news reports and the panic anytime a woman was confronted by someone who makes a similar claim. Women without options still went out to solicit strangers, but many started carrying knives themselves. Kate had one on her, for example.

                              By the time Liz Stride is killed I believe the man who killed Polly and Annie had ceased activities anyway, due to his freedom being revoked.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                Keep taking the podcasts! Unless they're really old, the information on them will often be more up-to-date than you'll find in books or on Wikipedia. And don't worry - the myth that Klosowski lived in the White Hart in 1888 is still widely held, even though it stems from the faulty memory of Wolff Levisohn, witness at Klosowski's trial nearly 15 years later.
                                Yeah this Chapman one was rather old, I thoroughly enjoy them all as there's always something new to be learned.

                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                                The evidence in Martha Tabrams murder is that she was stabbed repeatedly with a knife resembling a "pen-knife"..36 times...and then she was stabbed once in the breast by something like a bayonet
                                "and then" - bar the wound that was responsible for the cessation of life I don't believe that an order can be attributed to which wounds took place and when, especially in so narrow a timeframe.

                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                                The scenario suggests Martha was with someone who got uncontrollably angry with her, or women in general, and as a result she was stabbed repeatedly in a fit of rage with a knife he had in his pocket. A second soldier, likely looking for his mate, came across the scene and knew immediately the woman wouldn't survive. The bayonet stab is essentially a mercy killing in my opinion
                                There are many ways you can read into this, you could have the single stab first; and the pen knife could have been committed by a sleepwalker, or a sleepstabber, even in George Yard Buildings!

                                It is surely not overstepping bounds to indicate that a wounded woman lying there wheezing, perhaps thumping the ground to attract attention, would not attract attention. I suppose whilst Lennie ran off to find George with his big strong bayonet to tell him of this violent escapade a horribly wounded woman lay there. Quietly.

                                I suppose we can bring in Amy Hewitt for her cry of "Murder" but yet; alas; she's too early, whilst everyone else slept just fine.

                                I believe Mahoney testified "I did not get up till half-past eight in the morning, and during the night my attention was not attracted by a noise or disturbance of any kind."

                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                                you are free to buy into any speculation that seems to make sense to you
                                Aye, and you too!

                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                                but I don't see any evidence at all that any Canonical was robbed
                                I suppose a spooky ghost gracefully removed the rings from Annie Chapman, rather than her herself at knifepoint. There are other evidences, such as the clenched fists around personal items, or the items in relation towards the hands.

                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                                I don't see any evidence that Martha was ripped
                                I agree; she wasn't "ripped" as such as we see in the later killings; that doesn't mean that a lot of the other factors don't make the cut, and there's always the stab wound to the "lower body" that doesn't get enough consideration.

                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                                I see no need to marry her, by killer, with any Canonical victim
                                She was killed quietly [Mahoney, Francis Hewitt] No evidence of a struggle [Killeen] Around the same time - In the same area - The legs were positioned just as they were in the canonical killings -

                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                                There have been many people suggesting things that would make a prolonged series by one man more palatable to their own particular tastes
                                Yes, but what inference can be taken from the facts?

                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                                including suggesting that someone who just stabbed Martha was also the same man that killed 2 women in a very specific manner, in nearly identical fashion, and also excised a uterus nearly intact, in near darkness, just over a month later
                                Darkness is a topic I'm very interested in. I have some doubts as to how much of a big deal it is. After five minutes in near darkness you can see pretty much greyscale. Except, if you're inside with a light, even a small gas lamp and looking out, you'll see pitch black.

                                Regarding the uterus removal, there are many possible foundations for it; and all of them can lead back and include Tabram a month earlier.

                                "No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more"

                                1) Being able to dissect a body, or having knife skills, especially with a carcass, doesn't necessarily make you that much different from a home cook that deals with raw meat. Bodies come apart, just like chicken wings and legs seem to twist off very naturally. It's rather easy to feel your way around what will come off and what won't come off. What's got something behind it, and what has not.
                                2) Combine this with a book on anatomy and you're a happy person because most of the work has been done for you.
                                3) If you're good at doing something first time, then you're good at doing something first time. Some people just "get it" , and there are transferable skills that build into this, even something such as gutting a fish would be valuable, because you quickly realise that yanking the stringy connector bits (unscientific name) causes splashing. And jabbing your knife in impatiently causes damage to the fish.

                                I don't see how it's much of a far cry from doing that to doing that to a person, and if you've the gall to kill somebody then you've the gall to do all kinds of horrendous things. IE. The circular incisions to remove Kelly's breasts. Why circular, why not just straight through? He had a long enough knife to simply cut through the breast. But circular is the common sense answer that avoids the most issues surrounding just lopping them off.

                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                                I think your explanation for why the women wouldn't fear someone who joked about killing them is weak
                                Not an argument, simply a dismissal. If you want it to be an argument then put "because" instead of "and" ~ Let me fix it for you below so I actually feel like responding.

                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                                I think your explanation for why the women wouldn't fear someone who joked about killing them is weak, because it flies in the face of the news reports and the panic anytime a woman was confronted by someone who makes a similar claim
                                Exactly, people were saying it. I'm not exactly ignorant to this; but some probably more seriously than others, others trying to pass something serious off as a joke; and others trying to pass a joke off when they were serious. Again, not a dismissal or an argument. My point still stands because you're not attacking the foundation of my claim and using that as the reason to why you think it is "weak" (which would be the most effective way)

                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards
                                Women without options still went out to solicit strangers, but many started carrying knives themselves. Kate had one on her, for example.
                                Yes, but I still don't understand what this has to do with these women possibly being disarmed by a coy joke by a clearly comfortable, clearly joking and clearly jovial man (who then killed them). It is not like these women would have pulled a knife on anyone even remotely referencing the scare. After all, it is you who keeps saying that they were without options.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X