Example of a serial killer

[Takod]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Takod]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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 W Richards]

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.

[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.

[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...

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.