Skill or no Skill, that is the question

[c.d.]

Because the reality is that there is no series, its a premise. One that hasnt met the standards of proof all these years.

You make that statement repeatedly Michael and I really don't know why. I have been on these boards for many years and I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim with absolute, metaphysical certainty that the murders constituted a series and were carried out by one man and one man alone. What I have seen is people saying (myself included) that they believe the evidence supports that theory. That is quite different from what you are claiming.

And as for the proof that you so desperately want, where is your proof that they were done by different killers? You have no actual proof to support that only conjecture.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Your taking this in isolation cd, as I said before. Its the cumulative evidence, including her admission to being in a 3 way relationship, that allows for such positing.

The 3 way relationship might be significant but then again it might not be. You have to connect the dots. Kate got hacked to pieces and we are not aware that she was in such a relationship so it would appear that that type of relationship was not a requirement for being killed and cut up.

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

The 3 way relationship might be significant but then again it might not be. You have to connect the dots. Kate got hacked to pieces and we are not aware that she was in such a relationship so it would appear that that type of relationship was not a requirement for being killed and cut up.

c.d.

At this juncture anyone suggesting that at least 4 of the murders were not connected is doing so for reasons that are a mystery to me. Is it just to be different? The Victorian Police are treated as fools. Now I am not saying they were unfalliable- they were not but they knew the area, they knew the way things worked. The crimes were investigated seemingly to a good standard in relation to what they had available to them. People were questioned. Family and friends. Inquests were held. Statements taken from all sorts of people. Conclusions arrived at. We don't have all the documentation that they did but many think they know better. It's a bit sad to be honest.

[Michael W Richards]

Because the reality is that there is no series, its a premise. One that hasnt met the standards of proof all these years.

You make that statement repeatedly Michael and I really don't know why. I have been on these boards for many years and I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim with absolute, metaphysical certainty that the murders constituted a series and were carried out by one man and one man alone. What I have seen is people saying (myself included) that they believe the evidence supports that theory. That is quite different from what you are claiming.

And as for the proof that you so desperately want, where is your proof that they were done by different killers? You have no actual proof to support that only conjecture.

c.d.

I do that as a reality check for many posters cd. There are people here who have looked at these cases as a series when in fact there is not one iota of proof, after all this time, that they were connected by 1 killer. There never has been any discovered. They are, as they have been, a group of unsolved murders.

So by making arguments that are based on what happened with prior victims you are simply creating a link, not find an established one.

You said that Kate got hacked to pieces. You believe that the wounds on Mary resemble those kinds of injuries? Youve argued with me over every post for years, thats your prerogative, but if you would consider the logic in some of those perhaps you might amend your own perspective enough to see alternative answers.

Marys murder was unlike any preceding murder and there is ample evidence to suggest other possible motivations by her killer due to the many, many variances from prior murders. Since you havent solved any of these crimes maybe its because how you look at them. As a "series".

[Michael W Richards]

At this juncture anyone suggesting that at least 4 of the murders were not connected is doing so for reasons that are a mystery to me. Is it just to be different? The Victorian Police are treated as fools. Now I am not saying they were unfalliable- they were not but they knew the area, they knew the way things worked. The crimes were investigated seemingly to a good standard in relation to what they had available to them. People were questioned. Family and friends. Inquests were held. Statements taken from all sorts of people. Conclusions arrived at. We don't have all the documentation that they did but many think they know better. It's a bit sad to be honest.

One of the most respected and revered and well published ex-Policemen Ripperologists answered a direct question from me here some years ago, in case you think suggesting that these 5 victims are not all connected is somehow radical thinking, and he told me that after studying these crimes for 50 years he cannot see more than 2 or 3 of the Canonical Group as likely being connected by one killer. I dont know how long youve been studying these crimes, Ive been at this since 1988, but I suggest that you have a naive idea of the people and environment of that time. And so you dont continue believing that all contemporary investigators bought the Canonical Group theory, maybe read about the ones that openly admitted they had no idea how many victims were by one man, why they were killed and by whom.

Whats really a bit sad is adopting something others have said as some kind of stable foundation to use. Just like Trump supporters.

[c.d.]

Since you havent solved any of these crimes maybe its because how you look at them. As a "series".

Hello Michael,

I just want to make sure I am clear on this. Are you saying that as a result of you looking at the killings as individual in nature as opposed to a series that that has enabled you to solve the case? Please share if you have.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Since you havent solved any of these crimes maybe its because how you look at them. As a "series".

Hello Michael,

I just want to make sure I am clear on this. Are you saying that as a result of you looking at the killings as individual in nature as opposed to a series that that has enabled you to solve the case? Please share if you have.

c.d.

Im glad you asked because I never said or intimated that. What Ive said ad infinitum is that these are still individuals murdered without attribution to any killer, therefore if you use details from any victim before Mary to explain Marys death as part of a "ripper" series, you have not looked at Marys death as unconnected to any others. Which it technically still is, unconnected.

Lets put it this way, if no other woman was murdered in London during this 2 1/2 month period then Mary is found, would it be prudent to say she was killed by a raving maniac organ stealing mutilator killer who kills, at random, street walking women? Of course not. Certainly she was killed by someone deeply troubled, but was she was killed while street walking? No. Was she killed outdoors? No. Were all the cuts made on her made so that her heart could be extracted? No. Can we say by the evidence that the person was likely someone unknown to Mary..or do we have evidence that she ever brought strangers to her room before? No. Are slashes with a knife potentially a sign of heightened emotional activity? Yes. Do we have any evidence that Mary was secretly seeing 2 men simultaneously? Yes. Would a discovery of that by one party cause a emotionally heightened reaction? Likely. Do we know of anyone who ever mistreated Mary physically? Yes. Is it possible that she was killed by someone she knew who had grievances with her, either real or imagined? Yes. Can we say that her killer showed any knife skills and anatomical knowledge by the way she was killed and cut? No. Does particularly violent knife use suggest the killer was in some way punishing or blaming the victim for something real or imagined? Its possible, sure.

Now lets review Annies case. Is it prudent to suggest that she was killed by a maniac she randomly met whose ultimate objective was obtaining her uterus? By all the medical and circumstantial evidence, likely yes. Were all the cuts made on her necessary to achieve that ultimate goal? Yes..."there were no meaningless cuts". Was she actively soliciting at the time? Yes, we have that evidence. Did her killer, by the manner of her killing and the subsequent cuts made show the medical authorities that he had knife skills and anatomical knowledge? Yes. In fact they began to seek out people with those characteristics after Annies murder. They did not pursue that line of thought with Marys murder. Or Strides. Or Kates. Was Annie killed in a particularly violent fashion, with slashes and superflous cuts? No. She was killed methodically, her killer showed he felt nothing for the woman.

These are not all the same crime, they are different in many ways. Like a single cut to Liz Stride is.

Im always a little surprised by the firm support of a Five Victim Canonical Group based on little more than guesswork.

[Michael W Richards]

I will add cd that I am pleased that my take on these crimes is essentially the same as someone with far more research under his belt, knowledge of police investigative techniques, and with far more credibility in the Ripper field than you or I. So when you disagree with every thing I post I try and help you see the point of view, but am unaffected by your unwillingness to accept plausible, logical and reasonable suggestions about the cases.

You can believe whatever you want to. Im not selling anything. Im just someone trying to figure these out without resorting to using unfounded suppositions.

[c.d.]

These are not all the same crime, they are different in many ways. Like a single cut to Liz Stride is.

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. All completely different. No question about it. But because they are all different doesn't necessarily mean that they were committed by different individuals. If you focus exclusively on the differences then of course you will conclude different killers, that is almost inevitable.

But here is a little something for you to ponder. BTK committed a crime that was so completely different from his usual M.O. that the police never once considered that he could have been the killer. So different in fact that even when he confessed to it they still didn't believe him until he showed them the woman's driver's license and other things he had taken. So how does your simply show differences approach account for that?

The key in all this is necessarily. You focus on differences and then have an Inspector Lestrade aha! moment that is in no way justified by simply pointing out differences. You need more than that.

And as for the proof that you want C5 supporters to produce what exactly would that be?

c.d.

[c.d.]

I will add cd that I am pleased that my take on these crimes is essentially the same as someone with far more research under his belt, knowledge of police investigative techniques, and with far more credibility in the Ripper field than you or I.

Which means absolutely nothing. You both could be wrong.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I will add cd that I am pleased that my take on these crimes is essentially the same as someone with far more research under his belt, knowledge of police investigative techniques, and with far more credibility in the Ripper field than you or I.

Which means absolutely nothing. You both could be wrong.

c.d.

Everyone except you? Hmm....disrespecting anyone who doesnt allign with your own thinking huh? Interesting self reveal there.

[Michael W Richards]

These are not all the same crime, they are different in many ways. Like a single cut to Liz Stride is.

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. All completely different. No question about it. But because they are all different doesn't necessarily mean that they were committed by different individuals. If you focus exclusively on the differences then of course you will conclude different killers, that is almost inevitable.

But here is a little something for you to ponder. BTK committed a crime that was so completely different from his usual M.O. that the police never once considered that he could have been the killer. So different in fact that even when he confessed to it they still didn't believe him until he showed them the woman's driver's license and other things he had taken. So how does your simply show differences approach account for that?

The key in all this is necessarily. You focus on differences and then have an Inspector Lestrade aha! moment that is in no way justified by simply pointing out differences. You need more than that.

And as for the proof that you want C5 supporters to produce what exactly would that be?

c.d.

Frankly citing a case where the criminal was caught and proven guilty of serial murder is kind of cart before the horse isnt it? Or do you do that because you think you are comparing one serial killer with another? Well, in your argument there is only 1 known serial killer. Or is that how your acute detectivin' skills work...defend your position by citing cases that have nothing to do with the alleged Ripper series.

Youve repeatedly stood by the conventional theorizing when its abundantly clear that it is without any substantive supporting proof. You sure this is the right board for you? Surely there is a Oswald Definitely Did It Alone forum you might enjoy? Or Flat Earth is a Reality... You might find people there more like yourself.

See that underlined part in your post above? That different people did some of these would be the first logical take from that data. Not neccesarily, sure. But when people like you include a single knife wound kill and Armageddon like destruction with what I cited with Annies murder, a killer specifically seeking to obtain something specific using skills and knowledge, it would be a disservice to not try and point out the overwhelming LACK of proof and logic and reason of that presumption.

[c.d.]

Everyone except you? Hmm....disrespecting anyone who doesnt allign with your own thinking huh? Interesting self reveal there.

I suggest you attempt to sharpen up your reading and comprehension skills and then go back and reread my original post. I never stated in any way, shape or form that I could not be wrong. You made a rather feeble attempt at an Argument from Authority which constitutes a logical fallacy. I simply pointed out the implications of that fallacy. Your attempt to twist and misrepresent what I clearly wrote would tend to reveal something about you would it not?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Or is that how your acute detectivin' skills work...defend your position by citing cases that have nothing to do with the alleged Ripper series.

It is called an analogy. a-n-a-l-o-g-y. You can google it if you are not sure what it means or are you simply dismissing it because it absolutely destroys your approach to the case. Which is it?

Flat earth? Seriously? That is the best insult you can come up with? That is lame and I mean really, really lame. Trust me, Oscar Wilde you ain't.

But what really puzzles me is that while you continually tout your approach to the case as being superior to mine and virtually ever other poster, you readily acknowledge that you have not been able to solve the case despite studying it since 1988. If that is true, I would think a wise and prudent person would say hey, you know, this approach which I thought was so damn superior simply isn't working. Maybe I should take a new approach. Just saying.

c.d.

P.S. And did you think your insults and snotty little comments would not be answered in kind?

[FrankO]

the primary motivation of the ripper was a fascination with post mortem mutilation and what his knife could do to the female body.

That’s very similar to my take, Abby. If I had to guess I’d say that his primary motivation was curiosity (albeit very morbid) about the female body, which he explored, if you will, with his knife.

To a certain extent (mind you!) similar to normal adolescent blokes being very interested in exploring the female body with their hands when making out with their girlfriends. When they, for example, bring their girlfriend home and make out just outside, they might only ‘explore’ the most interesting part, whilst, when they find themselves at home without any parents or siblings, they might ‘explore’ much more. I know it’s a bit tacky, but there you go.