Patterns formed by murder locations

[Phil H]

If you get so picky MR HOLMES, I won't reply to you at all. Pompousness is not a nice quality.

Phil H

[Sally]

Sherlock - can we call you 'Holmes' instead? Its kind of clunky having to type Sherlock Holmes all the time and tiring for the fingers.

Unless there's another poster called Holmes of course. That'd be no good.

[Sherlock Holmes]

yes Sally you may

regards
Holmes

[Sally]

I have lots more - each member of the Cabinet of the day was to murder a different "unfortunate" in a specially chosen spot, so that Queen Victoria could look out from Big ben and see "Victoria Regina" written in blood on the streets of her capital. this would have youthened her and allowed her to reign forever.

Amazing! And highly credible. I always thought that these old European royal families had dark secrets. I've seen 'Countess of Blood', I know how it works.

So, what went wrong? Do you have any theories? Or..... she couldn't still be alive.... could she???

Oh yes, and the Prime Minister of the day didnn't know the meaning of Magna Marta in English. in fact it means, as everyone knows, "a big milk float".

Astonishing! The things you learn on Casebook. Its an education.

So when will your novel.... er... I mean, your brilliantly researched and totally factual solution to the case be published?

And have you thought of a title yet?

[Sally]

yes Sally you may

regards
Holmes

Thank you Holmes, very good of you.

[Phil H]

I think I'll call Sherlock, "Lestrade" - just for jollies.

Sally, my magnum opus (that's a huge ice cream for Mr Cameron) will be published on Kindle (version 939) in 2088 on the 200th anniversary of the murder of Caecilia Parsons - the hitherto undiscovered 393rd victim of the Whitechapel murderer. The forward will be written in blood by Her Revered Majesty Queen Victoria, who now lives in retirement in her sarcophagus under Hanbury Street - incidentally, she's looking forward to putting up Richard III for a night or four once all the DNA formalities are out of the way.

Alas, because the pentateuch was not properly completed within a blue moon and while pigs were flying, Queen V has lost the use of her legs, but otherwise continues to govern the British Empire with the help of Mr Disraeli, who (as I will show) was an alien from High Wycombe.

The book, will feature anagrams throughout and thus be wholly unreadable except by fans of Dan Brown novels.

Thanks for your continuing interest, Sally. I'll send an advanced copy to your chosen chryongenic storage depot.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

Phil, dear boy, you are a card!

But some of the steampunk novels have Queen Victoria living far beyond her time, hooked up to a steam powered life support until the cloning experiments she has authorized can grant her a new body. (Trilogy by George Mann, very well written!)

Seriously, one might make almost any shape depending on the number of murder sites used and order of connections.

However I could report on BBC that I saw the Devil come into Mitre Square from St James Place, complete with horns, cloven hoofs, and tail, and inside of a hour 50 more people would report their own siting. After all they still believe in crop circles!

Raven Darkendale

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you get so picky MR HOLMES, I won't reply to you at all. Pompousness is not a nice quality.

Phil H

fair enough phil

[Victaella W.]

I'm afraid it's priveleged information, Victaella.

The product of serious new research in the royal archives and the Tower - which as you know is only a "stone's throw" from the murder scenes.

The lead came from an almost casual reference in the Abberline diaries, (see Melvyn Fairclough's book) in which George Abberline records the Prince as saying (verbatim):

" Gor blimey me old ****, I'm wearin' the crown 'cos me and my make 'ere, Lord Esher, have been to a rave dahn the East End. It was rippin' fun. We managed half a pentateuch tonight..."

After that, my theory was just downhill all the way.



Phil H

My God, that makes complete sense. Why didn't I see it before!? I think I've been following the wrong leads all along! Thank you so much, Phil. I've seen the light, now.

@Holmes:"One begins to twist the facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts" (I'm sure you know who said that )

Dear, as others have pointed out, I think you should read more about this case first. There's a whole lot of information in this site that may seem overwhelming, but trust me, you'll want to know as much as you can before suggesting a theory (I still haven't posted mine, yet, exactly for this reason).

Cheers,
Victaella.

[RivkahChaya]

Yes i'm 98-99% sure they were all sex workers.

What does that mean? Out of every 100 days, there are 36 hours where you are uncertain, but the rest of the time, you are unswayable? Let me know when the 36 hours are coming up, because I'd like to have a discussion with you then.

Or, wait-- does it mean that 98.5% of the motor neurons that keep your eyes firmly shut, and you hands clamped over your ears, are firing furiously when someone says "Maybe they weren't...." but 1.5% of them are on a coffee break?

[RivkahChaya]

we do know they were all prostitutes

Was he a sex motivated killer?
and if so why?

Leaving aside for a moment the debate over whether or not the women were, in fact, prostitutes, I don't think it follows that prostitute = turned on = orgasm by murder, if that's what you are getting at. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, and maybe I'm oversensitive, but that statement I quoted sounded a little too much like "Women who put themselves on display are asking for it."

Please clarify, if I'm wrong.

Rapists don't rape because they're horny, and even if sexual serial killers have some kind of paraphilia that involves death or inflicting pain, or even necrophilia, they don't do it because they are "turned on" in any sense that a normal person would identify with.

I know I have said that anyone can probably understand JTR's needs by analogy, for example (bear with me, this is hypothetical), if he really did get interrupted during the Stride* murder, he might feel the need to find another victim more strongly than he did when he set out, just like we might feel even hungrier if our dinner is interrupted after one bite, than we did before we sat down. (That's an analogy; I'm not making any assumptions about JTR and cannibalism).

However, just because I think we can understand him, doesn't mean that his sex drive is completely normal, except it involves a murder at the point where most people are fiddling with the condom package.

I really, really don't think, no matter how many killers there were, how many victims, or anything else, the Whitechapel murders were not about getting laid.


*Please don't get distracted with arguments over whether or not Stride was a JTR victim. Assume it long enough for the analogy, and go on.

[Sherlock Holmes]

What does that mean? Out of every 100 days, there are 36 hours where you are uncertain, but the rest of the time, you are unswayable? Let me know when the 36 hours are coming up, because I'd like to have a discussion with you then.

Or, wait-- does it mean that 98.5% of the motor neurons that keep your eyes firmly shut, and you hands clamped over your ears, are firing furiously when someone says "Maybe they weren't...." but 1.5% of them are on a coffee break?

No it means i'm ninety eight percent certain all JTR's victims were prostitutes

[Sherlock Holmes]

Leaving aside for a moment the debate over whether or not the women were, in fact, prostitutes, I don't think it follows that prostitute = turned on = orgasm by murder, if that's what you are getting at. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, and maybe I'm oversensitive, but that statement I quoted sounded a little too much like "Women who put themselves on display are asking for it."

Please clarify, if I'm wrong.

Rapists don't rape because they're horny, and even if sexual serial killers have some kind of paraphilia that involves death or inflicting pain, or even necrophilia, they don't do it because they are "turned on" in any sense that a normal person would identify with.

I know I have said that anyone can probably understand JTR's needs by analogy, for example (bear with me, this is hypothetical), if he really did get interrupted during the Stride* murder, he might feel the need to find another victim more strongly than he did when he set out, just like we might feel even hungrier if our dinner is interrupted after one bite, than we did before we sat down. (That's an analogy; I'm not making any assumptions about JTR and cannibalism).

However, just because I think we can understand him, doesn't mean that his sex drive is completely normal, except it involves a murder at the point where most people are fiddling with the condom package.

I really, really don't think, no matter how many killers there were, how many victims, or anything else, the Whitechapel murders were not about getting laid.


*Please don't get distracted with arguments over whether or not Stride was a JTR victim. Assume it long enough for the analogy, and go on.

No I wasn't suggesting that women "who put themselves out" are asking for that.

As to why I think they were all prostitutes:
1) They were all found in places they had no APPARENT reason to be
2)All were killed very late at night
3)All were killed with pants round ankles

[lynn cates]

evidence?

Hello Sherlock. Regarding #1, I don't think being in a different place entails one is prostituting. For #2, many people are out at night working--but not in the suggested profession. Finally, for #3, you may wish to recheck your source.

No one must convince me that Polly and Annie were looking for a way to earn doss money through prostitution--we have their own dicta. But Liz and Kate? Not sure at all. Same for "MJK."

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

As to why I think they were all prostitutes:

-snip-

3)All were killed with pants round ankles

First, pants? I hope that is a British word for some kind of undergarment, because I'm pretty sure none of them were wearing what Americans call pants.

Second, that has nothing whatsover in the world to do with that profession. Street hookers, who don't take you somewhere, like a brothel or a hotel, but just to an alley, are wearing specially designed undergarments, none at all, or just lower them a little.

Third, I need a cite for "round ankles"; I don't think MJK had any at all, and I don't remember reading "round ankles" in any reports. Possibly "at ankles," meaning they had been removed entirely, and were on the ground by the feet. I think the killer did that.

Fourth, I haven't yet done so, but I'm sure if I looked up the number of women who had been victims of assault, both of completed rape and attempted rape, as well as personal murder (not a hit, snipe, or poisoning, but a, pardon the expression, hands on type crime, with a knife, blunt instrument, manual strangulation, or assault with close-range shooting), you will find that a large number of them had clothing removed, and when the idea was not simply to gain access for sexual assault, it was to humiliate.

Prostitutes are over-represented among women who are assaulted every year, but not to such a degree that you can make any assumption about the profession of a woman who is assaulted. Most of Gary Ridgeway's victims had worked as prostitutes, but not all them had, and some were probably not soliciting the night they were killed. None of Ted Bundy's victims were prostitutes. A couple of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims were, but most were not. None of the Zodiac's were. Some of Richard Ramirez's were, but by no means the majority were. Rodney Alcala won himself a potential victim on The Dating Game, but after she met him face-to-face, she changed her mind, and refused to go on the date.

No it means i'm ninety eight percent certain all JTR's victims were prostitutes

What does that mean? If I ask you 100 times in a row, you will say "yes" 98 times, and "no" two times?

Does it mean that you are certain on four of the women, but for one, you are prepared to roll two dice, and if they come up anything but snake's eye, declare her a sister as well?

Or does it just mean that if you are asked to wager money, you won't wager it on 1:1 odds, only 1:.98 or lower?