What did the copy-cat killer copy?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

How does the blood clots on the back of Strides other hand fit in with this scenario?

P.C. Lamb admitted to feeling her wrist. He also commented on the fact that some of her blood on the ground had clotted, and some had not. Seeing as how this is not something that can be done by sight, in the dark, I suspect he felt the blood to feel its consistency, then he felt her pulse? depositing clotted blood on her wrist.

At least that scenario works for me.

[Mr Lucky]

P.C. Lamb admitted to feeling her wrist. He also commented on the fact that some of her blood on the ground had clotted, and some had not. Seeing as how this is not something that can be done by sight, in the dark, I suspect he felt the blood to feel its consistency, then he felt her pulse? depositing clotted blood on her wrist.

Hi Wickerman

Coroner - Up to this time had you touched the body?
PC Lamb - I had put my hand on the face.
Was it warm? - Slightly. I felt the wrist, but could not discern any movement of the pulse.

So even if Lamb had blood on his finger shouldn't it have been transferred to her face as well? And why would it be on the back of her hand if he was looking for a pulse, not to mention was there actually any blood on his fingers to start with anyway ?

'Some of the blood was in a liquid state, and had run towards the kitchen door of the club. A little - that nearest to her on the ground - was slightly congealed. I can hardly say whether any was still flowing from the throat.'

Doesn't give any indication that he's touched it.

At least that scenario works for me

Ok, fair enough, can't say I'm convinced, but is this the only explanation ?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

Coroner - Up to this time had you touched the body?
PC Lamb - I had put my hand on the face.
Was it warm? - Slightly. I felt the wrist, but could not discern any movement of the pulse.

So even if Lamb had blood on his finger shouldn't it have been transferred to her face as well?

It may well have, if you notice the Coroner also asked Spooner if he had blood on his hands, and if he noticed blood on her chin.

And why would it be on the back of her hand if he was looking for a pulse,...

The blood was on the inside and the outside of her hand. When you feel for a pulse, your fingers feel the inside of the wrist, and your thumb is on the back of the wrist.

Doesn't give any indication that he's touched it.

An indication is not necessary, a pool of blood at night looks like oil, you cannot tell if it is liquid or congealed unless you touch it.
The very fact he knew some was congealed and some was not means he touched the blood.
If you can think of any other way....

[Mr Lucky]

It may well have, if you notice the Coroner also asked Spooner if he had blood on his hands, and if he noticed blood on her chin.

But Spooner replied no
And examined by Dr. Phillips? - Yes.
The Coroner: Was there no blood on your hands? - No.
Then there was no blood on the chin of the deceased? - No.

The blood was on the inside and the outside of her hand. When you feel for a pulse, your fingers feel the inside of the wrist, and your thumb is on the back of the wrist.

If you want to feel if some blood is wet or not you wouldn't put the whole of your hand in it, you would just use a finger tip.

An indication is not necessary, a pool of blood at night looks like oil, you cannot tell if it is liquid or congealed unless you touch it.
The very fact he knew some was congealed and some was not means he touched the blood.
If you can think of any other way....

Well, you could just look at it !, the basic description of some clotted blood and some liquid blood is given by others at the scene , have they all being putting their hands in it? It's the same at the other crime scenes, too, some liquid, some clotted. I don't remember anyone, at any of the murder scenes, mentioning testing to see if the blood is wet or not in the way you suppose.

Finally;- If there was a obvious transfer of blood, I don't see why Dr Phillips would be describing it as a mystery

Have you formed any opinion as to the manner in which the deceased's right hand became stained with blood? - It is a mystery. There were small oblong clots on the back of the hand. I may say that I am taking it as a fact that after death the hand always remained in the position in which I found it - across the body.

Also, as a side issue, I'm not suggesting that the killer bought the cachous, just that he had replaced them in her hand after she had dropped them. If the killer had bought them, that could potentially connect him with the crime scene and he's too smart for that.

[Wickerman]

But Spooner replied no
And examined by Dr. Phillips? - Yes.
The Coroner: Was there no blood on your hands? - No.
Then there was no blood on the chin of the deceased? - No.

Right, ...now, why do you suppose the Coroner asked if he saw blood on her chin?

Remember, Spooner arrived before P.C. Lamb. So, if Spooner claims he did not notice blood on her chin before PC Lamb arrived.... and Lamb touched her face when he arrived...

See what I'm getting at?

If you want to feel if some blood is wet or not you wouldn't put the whole of your hand in it, you would just use a finger tip.

Whole hand? - who said anything about the whole hand?
You feel a pulse by grasping a wrist with your fingers.

Well, you could just look at it !

What are you looking for, ripples?
You have to touch it to know if it is congealed or still liquid.

Finally;- If there was a obvious transfer of blood, I don't see why Dr Phillips would be describing it as a mystery

Neither Spooner nor PC Lamb were in court the day Dr Phillips was questioned, and perhaps vice versa.

Have you formed any opinion as to the manner in which the deceased's right hand became stained with blood? - It is a mystery. There were small oblong clots on the back of the hand. I may say that I am taking it as a fact that after death the hand always remained in the position in which I found it - across the body.

Exactly, so he is saying that provided no-one has moved the hand I cannot think why it should have blood clots on it.

Also, as a side issue, I'm not suggesting that the killer bought the cachous, just that he had replaced them in her hand after she had dropped them. If the killer had bought them, that could potentially connect him with the crime scene and he's too smart for that.

O.K.

[Mr Lucky]

See what I'm getting at?

Yes , ok, but had anyone said she had blood on her chin ?

Whole hand? - who said anything about the whole hand?
You feel a pulse by grasping a wrist with your fingers.

Well, that doesn't really fit with what you have already said -

'The blood was on the inside and the outside of her hand.'

So why is there blood on outside of her hand, if it is only being transferred by Lambs fingers? It should be only on the back of her hand if it was transferred by his thumb.

Why are the clots of blood being transferred, but the liquid blood isn't. ? Why would Lamb be messing about with the blood before checking to see if the woman is alive or dead, anyway? If Lamb is warning people to stand back and not to get contaminated with the blood, why would he himself then touch the blood and then transfer this on to Stride? (and then not tell anyone he had done this, resulting in Dr Phillips thinking it's a 'mystery')

None of this is making much sense at all.

What are you looking for, ripples?
You have to touch it to know if it is congealed or still liquid.

Well there are people who clearly didn't touch the blood who had described it in a similar manner at all the other crime scenes, for example at Hanbury street - 'The ground round where the woman lay was covered with clots of thick blood, and the spectacle presented was altogether a sickening one.' Or at Buck's-row Thain states that the blood on the pavement had clotted, but the blood in the gutter was running.

Neither Spooner nor PC Lamb were in court the day Dr Phillips was questioned, and perhaps vice versa.

It was already a mystery at scene, Phillips had examined Spooner's hand for blood, there and then.

Exactly, so he is saying that provided no-one has moved the hand I cannot think why it should have blood clots on it.

So then it's not Lamb/Spooner that's responsible for the blood clots ! (as he could eliminate them from his inquiries.)

[Wickerman]

Yes , ok, but had anyone said she had blood on her chin ?

The first procedure before the Inquest begins is for the Coroner and Jury to view the body, this viewing took place before the post-mortem, which began late at 3:00 pm.

Now, ask yourself, if the Coroner saw no blood on her chin, why ask Spooner if he saw any when he arrived?
However, if the Coroner did see blood on her chin.... he might ask somebody, wouldn't he?

Well, that doesn't really fit with what you have already said -

'The blood was on the inside and the outside of her hand.'

I didn't think it necessary to spell out in detail.

Ok, in order to feel the consistency of blood you touch it with your fingertips, right?, then you rub your thumb around the fingertips to feel if it is wet or sticky.
Then you take the hand of the victim in your fingers, with thumb on the outside and fingers on the inside - feeling for the pulse, leaving sticky blood clots/marks on both inside and outside of the wrist.
That, is all I have said.

In his summary, Coroner Baxter said:
"...When seen by Dr. Blackwell her right hand was lying on the chest, smeared inside and out with blood."

Are you with me now?

[Mr Lucky]

Now, ask yourself, if the Coroner saw no blood on her chin, why ask Spooner if he saw any when he arrived?
However, if the Coroner did see blood on her chin.... he might ask somebody, wouldn't he?

OK, I see that's possibly the case, but why did he only ask Spooner?

I didn't think it necessary to spell out in detail.

Ok, in order to feel the consistency of blood you touch it with your fingertips, right?, then you rub your thumb around the fingertips to feel if it is wet or sticky.
Then you take the hand of the victim in your fingers, with thumb on the outside and fingers on the inside - feeling for the pulse, leaving sticky blood clots/marks on both inside and outside of the wrist.
That, is all I have said.

In his summary, Coroner Baxter said:
"...When seen by Dr. Blackwell her right hand was lying on the chest, smeared inside and out with blood."

Are you with me now?

I would be if there was any indication that Lamb had actually put his hand in the blood before examining the woman, as it is, with your interpretation he is giving a false testimony.

I think it is far more likely that Lamb attended to the woman first and didn't transfer the blood, and it was already clotted on the back of her hand when he arrived.

What's the main problem with her having blood on the back of her hand anyway- presumably it doesn't fit with the killer being interrupted idea ?

So her killer wasn't interrupted and Lamb is telling us exactly what he did, I'm happy with that version

[Wickerman]

OK, I see that's possibly the case, but why did he only ask Spooner?

Presumably, because Spooner had already said: "..I put my hand under her chin..."

I would be if there was any indication that Lamb had actually put his hand in the blood before examining the woman, as it is, with your interpretation he is giving a false testimony.

Where is there false testimony?

I think it is far more likely that Lamb attended to the woman first and didn't transfer the blood, and it was already clotted on the back of her hand when he arrived.

Fine, we are only sharing opinions afterall.

What's the main problem with her having blood on the back of her hand anyway- presumably it doesn't fit with the killer being interrupted idea ?

Well, I was going to ask you that.
I fully expected Christer offering you his opinion, there are a few differences of opinion on this, but at the end of the day I'm not sure why it matters.
I don't recall this having a bearing on the 'interrupted' question though.

So her killer wasn't interrupted and Lamb is telling us exactly what he did, I'm happy with that version

So long as your happy

[Mr Lucky]

Where is there false testimony?

'The whole truth';- Lamb shouldn't self-edit or miss anything out of his testimony, this isn't the same as accusing him of misleading or anything like that, but he should give the whole truth, so if he had touched the blood before touching the woman he should say that, the sequence of events isn't that complicated and should be fresh in his memory, so I think its unlikely that he had actually done this and forgotten.

Fine, we are only sharing opinions afterall.

Yes, indeed, thanks very much for joining in.

Well, I was going to ask you that.
I fully expected Christer offering you his opinion, there are a few differences of opinion on this, but at the end of the day I'm not sure why it matters.
I don't recall this having a bearing on the 'interrupted' question though.

I thought it's fitting the blood stained hand in with the cachou holding hand in a realistic sudden attack scenario that leaves the crime scene as was found that promotes a lot of the reconstructions, debates, etc.

This is usually done in the context of was it Jack or another killer

So long as your happy

I'm very easily amused.

[Mr Lucky]

When did the 'copying' start ?

For example, with the Tabram murder, there were no real clues at the scene, the testimony of Pearly Poll however, implicated two soldiers that they were allegedly with that night, this is supported by PC Barrett who saw a Grenadier guardsman in Wentworth Street and the reference to the wound on the sternum which appeared to have been inflicted by a dagger or bayonet. And of course all this information appeared in the press. All from the Daily News 15 August 1888;-

'It is stated that on the night preceding the murder the deceased and a woman named Connolly were in company with two soldiers'

'Police Constable Barrett was on duty in the neighbourhood of George yard at about two o'clock on the morning of the tragedy. He noticed a soldier loitering, and remarked that it was quite time he was in barracks, when the soldier replied that he was waiting for a comrade who had accompanied a woman to one of the buildings close at hand.'

'The police state that the mortal wound received in the left breast presented the appearance of having been inflicted by a bayonet, where as the other wounds were inflicted with a knife.'

So if the murder of the next victim Nichols involved any pre-planning at all, a sensible copy cat killer of Nichols would have been wise to get hold of a bayonet, and use that in the killing (assuming that the killer wasn't actually a soldier himself) and try to throw the investigators of the scent, but the killer of Nichols hadn't done this, so the both copy-cat and the learning killer throwing the investigators of the scent ideas appear to look weak.

Are there any other shared aspects of the Tabram/Nichols murders that may indicate any form of copying/learning ?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Mr. Lucky.

Are there any other shared aspects of the Tabram/Nichols murders that may indicate any form of copying/learning ?

Learning: Well, stabbing someone repeatedly is not the most effective way, to go about murdering someone. If it was thought prior to Nichols that an individual was responsible for the deaths to that point, there could've been the idea that so long as it was gruesome it would be attributed to the same killer. Other than that I'm hard pressed to come up with much that makes as much since as that. The first murder that would be most likely to have been commited by the copycat would be Chapman. Hope I made that make some sense.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Dig,

Learning: Well, stabbing someone repeatedly is not the most effective way, to go about murdering someone.

True, Annie Millwood survived her stabbing attack, as did Ada Wilson, though of course, some stabbings are fatal with just one stab , largely depends where the stab is targeted. But Tabram's 39 stabs are excessive, and I would suggest that they can only be an attempt to kill. Nichols injuries are effectively stabs, or at least they start off as stabs (injuries inflicted downwards and violently)

there could've been the idea that so long as it was gruesome it would be attributed to the same killer.

Yes I agree, that's why the torso's were sometimes included in the killer's total, and all the murders were, generally at the time seen as the work of one fiend.

The first murder that would be most likely to have been commited by the copycat would be Chapman. Hope I made that make some sense.

Yes, the Chapman murder does have some very strange copying qualities, I'll be bringing some of them up at some point.

Though Millwood, Tabram and Nichols share some strong similarities, I think the first reasonable argument for a copy-cat type killing can be made with Chapman.

[Abby Normal]

The notion that one or more of the Whitechapel murders were copy-cat killings is immensely popular in some quarters, and so I would like to ask those people the following three quick questions.

1) Which of the 11 Whitechapel murders do you believe are copy cat killings.
2) What exactly did the killer copy in that instance.
3) Where did the killer gain the information from, which enabled him/her to do the actual copying?

Thanks in advance.

Define copy cat.

Do you mean copycat in that someone else other than the serial killer killed one of the victims for a totally unrelated motive and tried to make it look like the work of the serial killer to throw off suspicion on himself?

Or do you mean someone other than the serial killer heard/read about the murders and was "inspired" to try it himself?

Or something else?

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Abby

Define copy cat.

It's not my theory, so it's not really for me to define.

As I said "I would like to ask those people"

Michael Richards offered the notion of "mimicry", rather than a direct copy.

Do you mean copycat in that someone else other than the serial killer killed one of the victims for a totally unrelated motive and tried to make it look like the work of the serial killer to throw off suspicion on himself?

Or do you mean someone other than the serial killer heard/read about the murders and was "inspired" to try it himself?

Or something else?

Possibly all three, the first option is perhaps the likeliest for me.