What did the copy-cat killer copy?

[Mr Lucky]

This is a straw man argument. Nobody is making the claim that the Yorkshire Ripper influenced the Whitechapel Killer. The claim people are making is that if it's possible for one serial killer to have changed MOs between murders, its possible for a second one to do the same thing.

Why? Not because one influenced the other, but because they both share the same underlying human nature, and apparently strict identical MO between killings is not part of that underlying nature.

You're the one with the strawman here I'm afraid.

Once again;-

This thread is specifically concerned with the idea of a 'copy-cat killer'.

The 'copy cat killer' can only copy what had happened in the past.

A copy cat killer in 1888 cannot be influenced by what someone did in the 1970's - end of story.

[The Good Michael]

A copy cat killer in 1888 cannot be influence by what someone did in the 1970's - end of story.

The argument shows that a killer can change his ways enough that it may become difficult to connect a string of murders to him/her. It is a counter-argument to copycatting and is absolutely valid.

Mike

[Mr Lucky]

The argument shows that a killer can change his ways enough that it may become difficult to connect a string of murders to him/her. It is a counter-argument to copycatting and is absolutely valid.

Mike

No, again this is another strawman.

I have repeatedly through out this thread examined the counter-argument to the copy-cat killer;- the serial killer who learns from the press and adapts his behaviour to throw the investigators of the scent.

We can examine these two hypothetical models through comparison, but to do this we accurately we have to limit our understanding of the murders scenes to that of the contemporary population at that exact point in time. We have to pretend to have the equivalent knowledge to that which the people we are comparing would have had at that particular time.

If you think there is something to be gained by comparing the behaviour of the Whitechapel murderer(s) with the Yorkshire ripper, fair enough, buts that's something for another thread.

[The Good Michael]

No, again this is another strawman.

I have repeatedly through out this thread examined the counter-argument to the copy-cat killer;- the serial killer who learns from the press and adapts his behaviour to throw the investigators of the scent.

We can examine these two hypothetical models through comparison, but to do this we accurately we have to limit our understanding of the murders scenes to that of the contemporary population at that exact point in time. We have to pretend to have the equivalent knowledge to that which the people we are comparing would have had at that particular time.

If you think there is something to be gained by comparing the behaviour of the Whitechapel murderer(s) with the Yorkshire ripper, fair enough, buts that's something for another thread.

I went back to the OP. You are only asking for responses from people who believe there were copycat killings. That means, the vast majority of us should stay out of the thread. I'm bowing out.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Once again;-

You have made a claim;-

Yes, I think the killer of Nichols was interrupted
<and>
A circumstantial case has been made over the wounds inflicted on her.

So what specifically in regarding to the wounds inflicted on Nichols suggest that her killer was interrupted.

I've already answered the above, and your focus on the idea of a 'copy-cat' appears to be oblivious to the possibility that no such copy-cat existed.

It seem's like you are in contention with everybody now, doesn't this give you cause to reflect?

[Mr Lucky]

I've already answered the above,

No you haven't . Once again, you have claimed;-

Yes, I think the killer of Nichols was interrupted
<and>
A circumstantial case has been made over the wounds inflicted on her.

You have claimed there is something about the circumstances connected to Nichols wounds that suggest her killer was interrupted and when I asked what this is you then make a comparison between Nichols and Chapman.

You have failed to cite anything from the Nichols murder scene that indicates her killer was interrupted. But this comes as no surprise as there is nothing at all to suggest her killer was interrupted.

and your focus on the idea of a 'copy-cat' appears to be oblivious to the possibility that no such copy-cat existed.

From post 108;-

By definition the 'copy-cat killer' would be sane, or would be in a legal sense at least, due to the fact he was actively trying to avoid culpability for his crime. Similarly, the notion of the 'learning serial killer' who was actively trying to mislead the investigators then he would also be sane, for exactly the same avoiding culpability reason. So, for the purpose of this thread only, and testing out these two ideas together, we can assume the killer of Stride(for example) was legally sane.

<and>

So, let's just test the idea on the basis that the killer is sane and intelligent enough to know that he would be hung if caught and doesn't want that to happen, and then make a comparison between these two ideas, the one off copy-cat and the learning multiple killer, and how they may have interacted with the crime scene

I'm not suggesting that no other options exist.

And if the notion that testing an idea that supposes the killer was smarter than we are, is too much for anyone to bare, then they can always stick with the 'I know he was interrupted' school of thought.

So you tell me, what does that bit in bold actually mean to you ?

It seem's like you are in contention with everybody now, doesn't this give you cause to reflect?

Everybody ?

[Observer]

The Yorkshire Ripper came up in an argument over whether killers can change their MO - and the Yorkshire Ripper was cited merely as an example of a serial killer changing his MO from murder to murder, proof that it is at least possible.

Not only that Damaso, it would be physically impossible to turn out identical corpses every time the same killer struck. There would be similarities of course.

Take Kate Eddowes as an example. We have posters who believe that because her killer cut her from pubes upwards, then it automatically follows that he could not have been the same man who killed Chapman and Nichols. Of course what they do not take into consideration is the volume of skirts that Kate Eddowes wore on the night of her death. I believe that after he had incapacitated Eddowes, he had trouble lifting her skirts, due to sheer volume, and could only reveal the lower part of her body.Thus he cut from the pubes upwards. He later cut through certain sections of her garments, to gain better access.

[The Good Michael]

Observer,

You're wasting your time. Phil only wants people who believe in a copy cat and who are using only two circa 1888 hypothetical models to post on this thread. It's a narrow focus, I know. Stay tuned for my follow up thread: The brand of gin Elizabeth Stride drank. If you don't have size 11 feet and/or you don't believe Stride drank gin, you aren't welcome to post.

Mike

[Observer]

Ha Ha, I look forward to that Michael.

Observer

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Observer

Take Kate Eddowes as an example. We have posters who believe that because her killer cut her from pubes upwards, then it automatically follows that he could not have been the same man who killed Chapman and Nichols.

A very good point. The descriptions of the wounds on Nichols are somewhat confused, but the idea that all the wounds on Nichols were done in a downwards direction appears to be a result of misquoting Llewellyn's line "All of these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. "

When this quote is put in to context, it is clearly in reference to how the wounds were inflicted, ie- the motion of the knife, but then 'some posters' for some reason, erroneously connect this quote with the direction that ALL the wounds were inflicted on Nichols "downwards", implying that they were ALL done from the ribs/chest area downward to the groin area, countering this assertion is Llewellyn's very next line - 'The injuries were from left to right', previously he also states elsewhere that there were "several incisions running across the abdomen"

Clearly neither of these statement fit in with the idea that ALL the wounds were inflicted from the ribs downwards.

Here's the whole chunk of text concerning the abdominal wounds, we can make up our own minds then -

There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen . Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All of these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The injuries were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-.handed person. All the injuries had been done with the same instrument.’ - Manchester Courier and Lancashire general advertiser 8 September 1888

Here from Llewellyn's press interview given on Friday before the PM, is the directly contrary "base of the abdomen to the breast bone" implying the injury started near the groin and travelled UP the body towards the ribs;-

"The neck is severed back to the vertebra, which is also slightly injured. The abdominal wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted. One cut extends from the base of the abdomen to the breast bone. Deceased's clothes were loose, and the wounds could have been inflicted while she was dressed." - Pall Mall Gazette 1 Sept 1888

However, contrary to this is Spratling's report from 31August 1888, which suggests the wound started from the centre of bottom rib - "The abdomen had been [cut] open from centre of bottom ribs a[long] right side, under pelvis to left of stomach" - From Ultimate Sourcebook, Evans and Skinner

He later cut through certain sections of her garments, to gain better access.

It's almost like he's learnt something, and modified his behaviour accordingly.

[Michael W Richards]

Not only that Damaso, it would be physically impossible to turn out identical corpses every time the same killer struck. There would be similarities of course.

Take Kate Eddowes as an example. We have posters who believe that because her killer cut her from pubes upwards, then it automatically follows that he could not have been the same man who killed Chapman and Nichols. Of course what they do not take into consideration is the volume of skirts that Kate Eddowes wore on the night of her death. I believe that after he had incapacitated Eddowes, he had trouble lifting her skirts, due to sheer volume, and could only reveal the lower part of her body.Thus he cut from the pubes upwards. He later cut through certain sections of her garments, to gain better access.

Ok Observer, lets take Eddowes as an example....Dr Brown thought his skill matched that of "someone who cuts up animals", and from Dr Sequiera,"I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill."

Add that to the opinion of the physician who saw the most dead Canonicals of any senior official, Phillips ....(whose opinion was that the murderer of Annie Chapman possessed anatomical knowledge that he did not qualify as something being acquired by cutting up animals, and who was brought in to consult on the Eddowes examination due to his expertise with the specific wounds inflicted on both Nichols and Chapman),... who in effect set the bar for a suspect killers skill level that we could reliably count on seeing in subsequent murders.

You pointed out one of the differences in how the initial cuts were made above. There is no way of knowing how long it took to complete Annies murder, if Lawende did see Kate we have some idea of how much time would be available to the Mitre Square killer, but its difficult to state whether there was a perception by the killer of an increased emphasis on the time allotment in Mitre Square to explain the messy cuts and incisions......assessing if each murder had equal timing and therefore equal opportunities for skillful cutting, as it were.

I believe the records show us that in early September we were provided with a profile for the killer that surmised some level of actual medical training, and after Kate we were advised that a butcher could have been responsible.

Since most surgical skills came from working on human cadavers and most butchers learned to cut up animals based on preserving the most edible portions, thus discovering anatomical knowledge in the process, I would imagine that there would be discernible differences in the approach, the strategy, and the cleanliness of the cuts.

Annies killer took skin flaps from her abdomen. My example of Approach and Strategy. Kates killer could have just discovered the organ he took in complete form, and the organ that was excised with skill from Annie was taken sloppily from Kate, and incompletely. One would think if someone intended to remove a kidney, assuming some Strategy and a formula for how to Approach the task, Kate would have been placed face down, or at least on her side.

The only victims that indicated the same killer clearly were the first 2.

Cheers

[Mr Lucky]

Add that to the opinion of the physician who saw the most dead Canonicals of any senior official, Phillips ....(whose opinion was that the murderer of Annie Chapman possessed anatomical knowledge that he did not qualify as something being acquired by cutting up animals, and who was brought in to consult on the Eddowes examination due to his expertise with the specific wounds inflicted on both Nichols and Chapman),... who in effect set the bar for a suspect killers skill level that we could reliably count on seeing in subsequent murders.

Phillips had no expertise on the injuries inflicted on Nichols as he hadn't seen them. The two victims he actually saw with abdominal mutilations were Chapman and Beadmore.

[Wickerman]

Take Kate Eddowes as an example. We have posters who believe that because her killer cut her from pubes upwards, then it automatically follows that he could not have been the same man who killed Chapman and Nichols.....

Hi Observer.
Although I have come across this interpretation myself, it is entirely false.

The beginning of the abdominal wound is clearly stated:
"The front walls were laid open from the sternum to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the ensiform cartilage."

If anyone doubts where the ensiform cartilage is located, then...


Kate was sliced open from top to bottom as with Chapman.

[Michael W Richards]

Jon,

"We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bone to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of the front surface of that cartilage."

It would seem that in Dr Browns comments above he states that the knife was inserted and then used to cut in an upward motion initially....my error was including the start point provided by the poster I was responding to.

And to address the other post, Phillips had the details provided by the assessment of Nichols wounds and found them to be of the same character.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

It would seem that in Dr Browns comments above he states that the knife was inserted and then used to cut in an upward motion initially....my error was including the start point provided by the poster I was responding to.

Hi Michael.

If you read through the whole description continuing below your quote you can follow the wound as it descends from the liver down around the navel, and through the abdomen to the pubes.

The wound begins, as described, at the sternum, but the knife is thrust upwards, and then dragged down across the abdomen.