What did the copy-cat killer copy?

[Bridewell]

Actually, I wonder what could make less sense than the copycat theory.

Indeed. Whilst there is a possibility that the Ripper will be blamed for the copycat's crimes, there is an equal likelihood that the copycat will be blamed for the Ripper's.

[Nick Spring]

Yes I always thought was strange cutting the apron rather just wiping hands there and then. Unless Eddowes cut it for reasons that have been discussed before on other threads.

I just can't buy into a copycat killer overall. Were there really that many psychopath's running around the area. It would take a lot to kill in this style.

Not sure regarding Stride though.

[Mr Lucky]

Might you provide me with examples of potential clues?

The killers behaviour at the crime scene, the crime scene itself.

My opinion, if we are dealing with a single mutilator, is that he wasn't concerned about leaving clues. The only thing I can think of would be the GSG. Okay, I've got something in mind for a copycat scenario. I'll think it through and then let you have at it

GSG/Apron is an obvious example, If the killer doesn't want to leave clues, why not dump the apron somewhere it was less likely to be found? And consider the apron itself, he cut the thing in half rather than cut through the tie around her waist, which was very helpful of him, otherwise the investigators may not have been sure it was Eddowes apron.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Mr. Lucky.

Hi Dig,

Well, it's basically quite similar to the idea that the lone copy-cat killer uses the information in the press to try to pass the blame on to the Whitechapel serial killer.

For example;- after the Chapman murder, if the killer (Jack) thinks the police are looking for a foreigner or a Jewish man, then at the next murder he would plant some kind of clue implicating a foreign/Jewish man. Most think he left 'clues' to help us, I'm not so sure.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying for me. Might you provide me with examples of potential clues? My opinion, if we are dealing with a single mutilator, is that he wasn't concerned about leaving clues. The only thing I can think of would be the GSG. Okay, I've got something in mind for a copycat scenario. I'll think it through and then let you have at it.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hello Dig, (hope you don't mind the diminutive)

How dare you?! Who the hell do you think you are?! Naw just kidding. You can call me mud if you so choose C4.

Thank you and may I return the compliment? Always good to read your clear-headed and well thought-out posts.

You are too kind. My brain is as mud now a days. Maybe well thought out but atrociously articulated and conveyed. Alas. A mire of a maelstrom in my head.

Yes, I believe they were choked only for a brief time.According to the site I mentioned (very good if you only look at what you want to know) it takes practically no time at all to render someone unconscious by, for example, pulling a knotted scarf tightly round the neck. That was the doctor's suggestion, I believe, that Liz was pulled back by her scarf.

Interesting. I'll give it an examination. I wonder about those damn cauchous though. I would imagine the longer Stride was choked the more likely they would've been to spill or be dropped perhaps? I am of the opinion Stride's killer took hold of it.
Best wishes,

Gwyneth/C4

Many blessings. One classy lady.

[Mr Lucky]

I just read that and I'm certain it doesn't make sense. Attempt 2. How could the killer use what was in the press to try and implicate the likeliest suspect after the murder was commited? I think that does it Mr. Lucky. This is why I am confused about your post.

Hi Dig,

Well, it's basically quite similar to the idea that the lone copy-cat killer uses the information in the press to try to pass the blame on to the Whitechapel serial killer.

For example;- after the Chapman murder, if the killer (Jack) thinks the police are looking for a foreigner or a Jewish man, then at the next murder he would plant some kind of clue implicating a foreign/Jewish man. Most think he left 'clues' to help us, I'm not so sure.

[curious4]

Strangled

Yes. But I don't think either may have been, if they were, to the same extent. Possibly suggesting brevity. The killer may have prefered to use both hands as opposed to an arm or ligature. It may have not been practical anymore to go that route. So an altering of method perhaps? Form giving way to function. That's one way I like to describe it.

Hello Dig, (hope you don't mind the diminutive)

Thank you and may I return the compliment? Always good to read your clear-headed and well thought-out posts.

Yes, I believe they were choked only for a brief time.According to the site I mentioned (very good if you only look at what you want to know) it takes practically no time at all to render someone unconscious by, for example, pulling a knotted scarf tightly round the neck. That was the doctor's suggestion, I believe, that Liz was pulled back by her scarf.

Best wishes,

Gwyneth/C4

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

my last post.

I just read that and I'm certain it doesn't make sense. Attempt 2. How could the killer use what was in the press to try and implicate the likeliest suspect after the murder was commited? I think that does it Mr. Lucky. This is why I am confused about your post.

[DVV]

I am seriously asking this question. It is of course a rhetorical one, but it makes as much sense as a copycat.
Mike

Actually, I wonder what could make less sense than the copycat theory.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Mr. Lucky.

Hi Mike,

Well I am, or something very similar. I think the killer is trying to throw the investigators off the scent by leaving false clues, and the killer is trying to implicate who ever he thinks is the likeliest suspect, information which he learns from the press.

I am confused. How could the killer implicate someone posthumously?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo C4 good to see you around.

Yes. But I don't think either may have been, if they were, to the same extent. Possibly suggesting brevity. The killer may have prefered to use both hands as opposed to an arm or ligature. It may have not been practical anymore to go that route. So an altering of method perhaps? Form giving way to function. That's one way I like to describe it.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Mr. Lucky.

If I recall correctly, not every internal part is listed in #13. Poster Errata made mention of this not too long ago. Hullo Errata, if you are out there can you remind me what you had posted? I guess I could search for it but I really don't have the time. Or I could be remembering incorrectly as I am exhausted.

[curious4]

Strangulation

Hello Dig and Damaso,

A case could be made for strangulation of Kate Eddowes. In the sketches made by Foster her hands are clenched. Clenched hands are a sign of strangulation (see forensicpathologyonline .com under signs of ligature strangling) I tried to avoid looking at the photos here. According to the autopsy her fingers were "slightly" bent, but you could perhaps argue that, as she was probably just strangled into unconsciousness the hands later relaxed a little. Still, in Foster's sketch they definitely look clenched to me.

As for Liz Stride, if you look closely at her eyes in her photograph you can make out the outline of her eyes, almost as if she was staring up at you. I have wondered if this points to bulging eyes, also a sign of strangulation. On slightly shakier ground here though!

Best wishes,

C4

[Mr Lucky]

Why does no one pose the theory that it was one killer who attempted to make it look as there were 3 or more different ones? That is as likely as mimicry. I am seriously asking this question. It is of course a rhetorical one, but it makes as much sense as a copycat.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Well I am, or something very similar. I think the killer is trying to throw the investigators off the scent by leaving false clues, and the killer is trying to implicate who ever he thinks is the likeliest suspect, information which he learns from the press.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Mr Lucky,

I believe its possible that there were murders within the "5" that may have been attempts at mimicry, if not copying...

1. Possibly Mary Jane Kelly, less probable but possible, Kate Eddowes.
2. I believe it was the removal of internal organs, seen in the Chapman case and intimated in the Nichols case.
3. The news.

Hi Michael

Thank for that, very interesting point about mimicry and copying, I would describe the injuries done to Jane Beadmore as a kind of mimicry, a better term for it than copying perhaps.

The reason I believe its possible is because the focus in those first 2 murders is not present in either of the subsequent 2 I mention above. The focus in those earlier cases was the abdomen. Almost every action performed with the knife in that Hanbury backyard seemed, to the medical experts, to have been en route to achieving the final objective, in other words, a minimum of cuts that were superfluous.

In Kates and Marys case, there is no way to determine what any final objectives may have been, due to the plethora of superfluous cuts. And, a curious departure from any specific interest in the Uterus, the objective of Annies killer.

The strange notion that the killer, who previously seemed so determined to take body parts away from the scene, leaves the lot (except maybe heart) in Kelly's room is one of the most mind boggling aspects of whole case for me and always has been. A very curious departure indeed.