What did the copy-cat killer copy?

[Hunter]

Phillips never commented on the character of Nichols' wounds, nor did he not say that the murderer of Chapman could not have been a slaughterer or a butcher. Some seem determined to put Baxter's words in Phillips' mouth. I've posted what Phillips did say or report several times on these boards and that still doesn't matter to agenda based people it seems.

[Ausgirl]

To my (certainly not encyclopaedic) knowledge, the Ripper generally (I am talking generally for the moment) did the following things:

- Located a female victim in a window of time and area within which she was suitably isolated.
- Exerted almost immediate control
- Forced the victim to the ground
- Cut the victim's throat with intent to kill
- Attacked the dead or dying victim with a knife, exhibiting gross overkill
- Did not exhibit hesitation
- Took trophies
- Acted very quickly and left the scene rapidly

In looking at other serial criminals, particularly those who have remained at large for long periods of time -and- also exhibited ritualistic/fetishistic/fantasy based behaviours, it becomes clear that not every crime is committed in precisely the same way, despite the criminal having a 'script', a 'signature' behaviour and a level of consistency shown in the MO (allowing for learned behaviours over time, etc).

In one case, a serial rapist/killer follows his MO, his verbal script entirely, has his victim incapacitated and there is nothing to prevent him continuing - yet he suddenly stops and walks away from the scene without committing rape or murder. Why? It appears to have been something the victim said, which could have, for some reason, completely derailed his fantasy. The comment may have triggered a conflicting emotional response. He may have experienced the killer/rapist's version of an instant soft-on, and was therefore unable to continue his fantasy to its desired conclusion.

I have put this as an example of how a crime definitely linked to others in a series, and sharing many of the same basic elements as his other crimes, did not proceed to the clearly 'signature' stage or desired outcome for a reason known only to the killer.

This same rapist was known to stalk and prepare a crime scene for victims that he did not actually attack, instead for whatever reason attacking a woman a few doors down instead. It appears he simply changed his mind.

(To head off comments re ability to speak with a cut throat, I am not saying the two killers did the same thing, precisely.... just that interruption happens, with an example)

By way of saying, it's entirely possible that Liz Stride's attack, for example, was interrupted in some way or other that may or may not have existed outside the killer's own head, so he then rapidly moved on to the next victim, unwilling to leave his desires unfulfilled.

It's not without precedent, and isn't impossible.

It's pretty reasonable, I think, to view a bunch of crimes within the same limited geographical area, in the same time frame and with similar elements in each of the attacks as very probably committed by the same person, regardless of variation in details.

By which to say, at this time, I'm not really seeing a copycat among the canonical victims.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

So, you believe the killer wished to inflict even more damage on the victim than he actually did, and the evidence for this is that there is less damage on the victim than you believe that there should be, which proves you're correct and therefore the killer was interrupted !

Hi Mr. Lucky,

I don't recall saying anything of the sort. I thought I pointed out that it would be hard to form a conclusion either way, because only the killer knows if he would have liked to hang around and do more to a body but didn't dare, or if he was able to do all he wanted to do. You are the one coming down on the side of no interruption in Buck's Row, while I'm merely asking why that is the more likely option. I'm open to both equally, although the Nichols murder was obviously unusual in nature, considering there was a mystery as to why the killer chose to target her abdomen.

Assumption A - As the killer had left the crime scenes without leaving any signs of being interrupted, (with the possible exception of the murder of Coles), we might as well assume he had done everything he had wanted to do, otherwise he wouldn't have left until he had.

Or

Assumption B - We don't know what else the killer wanted to do - but whatever it may have been, the fact it wasn't done, means the killer was interrupted.

I would prefer to call them possibilities and add C - The killer would have been interrupted eventually, had he stayed around for much longer, by the first person to come across the dead body in each case. He would have been well aware of this unless he was so away with the fairies that he should by rights have been caught in the act. So in some cases he may have had to do a runner before he was ready to call it a night, but in others he may have been lucky enough to finish what he'd started in peace. I wouldn't like to bet that it was one or the other on every occasion.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

The interruption explanation takes us quite a long way in establishing what type of killer or killers we are looking at (or for).

It must be remembered that the districts of the East End in which the murders took place were up to four or five times more densely populated than now.
Carrying out a murder that involved a relatively time consuming mutilation phase that was not intrinsic to the taking of the victim’s life would markedly increase the chances of interruption.
Indeed it is perhaps to be expected that some sort of interruption would be the norm in a fully-fledged Ripper type attack.

Anyone who has done anything even remotely naughty will know that a weather eye is sensibly kept to spy an intruder and inevitably the full naughty activity will be somewhat truncated in its original conception. Accordingly it seems likely that a ‘full realisation’ of the culprit’s intentions will be very rare.

Also, it takes a degree of cognitive competence, self-awareness, and an overarching desire for self-preservation to become aware of the intrusion (or potential intrusion) and stop in mid-stream.
A culprit who exhibited mental health issues that were likely to result in random, uncontrolled, spontaneous, totally unpremeditated attacks would probably be less aware of an approaching intruder.

Taking the various attacks, Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes which show evidence of progression in ambition without signs of significant interruption, while the circumstances of the Kelly murder of course suggests the killer was able to attain ‘full realisation’ – perhaps to a greater level than the culprit ever anticipated or intended.
Eddowes is the exception in that her body was found very soon after her murder.
Where the other victims were found soon after their murder, there are indications of interruption. That applies to Nichols, Stride, probably Mylett, Mackenzie and Coles.
Wilson, Millward and Smith could be added to the interrupted tally.

The interruption theory also explains why the attacks exhibit dissimilarities that can be taken to indicate a different hand.

The Pinchin Street Torso, if included, also presumably indicates ‘full realisation’, although it might be argued that the disposal of the torso was a rushed job and ‘forced’ on the perpetrator.
The Pinchin Street Torso might also represent a deliberate attempt by the culprit to carry out a different type of attack to confuse the authorities as to whether it was carried out by the same person – the antidote to the imprecise copy-cat suggestion!
The same argument can be used to link the two female corpses found in the Regent’s Canal in 1891 and 1898.

I would argue that the Nichols murder wasn’t unusual or a mystery because the culprit decided to target the abdomen. After all Tabram’s abdomen was also targeted.
It was unusual as the abdominal wounds were hidden by her clothing when the body was discovered. This is the main indicator that the killer was interrupted – she was not left ‘on display’.

[Wickerman]

Yes Ed. I quite agree.
Even to the extent of the Kelly murder. Why would the killer begin to carve her flesh from her bones, then stop & leave?

There may well be cause to consider that the killer was either interrupted or, changed his mind, whatever the true cause, the body as he left it looks like he stopped in the midst of some process that clearly looks unfinished.

[Abby Normal]

The interruption explanation takes us quite a long way in establishing what type of killer or killers we are looking at (or for).

It must be remembered that the districts of the East End in which the murders took place were up to four or five times more densely populated than now.
Carrying out a murder that involved a relatively time consuming mutilation phase that was not intrinsic to the taking of the victim’s life would markedly increase the chances of interruption.
Indeed it is perhaps to be expected that some sort of interruption would be the norm in a fully-fledged Ripper type attack.

Anyone who has done anything even remotely naughty will know that a weather eye is sensibly kept to spy an intruder and inevitably the full naughty activity will be somewhat truncated in its original conception. Accordingly it seems likely that a ‘full realisation’ of the culprit’s intentions will be very rare.

Also, it takes a degree of cognitive competence, self-awareness, and an overarching desire for self-preservation to become aware of the intrusion (or potential intrusion) and stop in mid-stream.
A culprit who exhibited mental health issues that were likely to result in random, uncontrolled, spontaneous, totally unpremeditated attacks would probably be less aware of an approaching intruder.

Taking the various attacks, Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes which show evidence of progression in ambition without signs of significant interruption, while the circumstances of the Kelly murder of course suggests the killer was able to attain ‘full realisation’ – perhaps to a greater level than the culprit ever anticipated or intended.
Eddowes is the exception in that her body was found very soon after her murder.
Where the other victims were found soon after their murder, there are indications of interruption. That applies to Nichols, Stride, probably Mylett, Mackenzie and Coles.
Wilson, Millward and Smith could be added to the interrupted tally.

The interruption theory also explains why the attacks exhibit dissimilarities that can be taken to indicate a different hand.

The Pinchin Street Torso, if included, also presumably indicates ‘full realisation’, although it might be argued that the disposal of the torso was a rushed job and ‘forced’ on the perpetrator.
The Pinchin Street Torso might also represent a deliberate attempt by the culprit to carry out a different type of attack to confuse the authorities as to whether it was carried out by the same person – the antidote to the imprecise copy-cat suggestion!
The same argument can be used to link the two female corpses found in the Regent’s Canal in 1891 and 1898.

I would argue that the Nichols murder wasn’t unusual or a mystery because the culprit decided to target the abdomen. After all Tabram’s abdomen was also targeted.
It was unusual as the abdominal wounds were hidden by her clothing when the body was discovered. This is the main indicator that the killer was interrupted – she was not left ‘on display’.

Quite agree with this. Good post lech.

[caz]

The man killing in 1888 isn't being influence by anything that happened in the 1970's

Correct, Mr Lucky. And there is no reason to believe that Peter Sutcliffe was influenced by anything that happened in 1888 either. If the Whitechapel Murders had never happened, we would still have seen the likes of Sutcliffe doing their thing over the subsequent decades.

Human nature, including serial offender behaviour, has not changed that much over that interval of time, as has already been observed.

No need therefore to introduce copy-cat theory when serial killers are known to act independently of other offenders, and to change their own behaviour from one murder to another, if and when it suits their purposes, eg helps them to evade detection.

I think cases like the Yorkshire Ripper may be highly relevant when attempting to analyse the events of 1888.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Apparently, one would not have thought back in 1888 that if someone intended to remove a kidney from Eddowes, and knew what they were doing, they would have placed her 'face down, or at least on her side'. Very few, if any, surgeons were removing kidneys in those days, so it's understandable that the killer would not have thought to go in from the back. What he did was a rather good job of it, all things considered, which indicates some knowledge not only of human anatomy but of the techniques needed to get at a left kidney via the front.

Love,

Caz
X

[Hunter]

Annie's killer took flaps from her abdomen... and so did Mary Kelly's murderer. I wonder what our perception of these atrocities would be if we had in situ photos of all the victims as we do with Kelly.

[curious]

Annie's killer took flaps from her abdomen... and so did Mary Kelly's murderer. I wonder what our perception of these atrocities would be if we had in situ photos of all the victims as we do with Kelly.

Hi, Hunter,

I've often wondered how others see the flaps.

Does the knowledge that flaps were removed in both cases incline your mind toward the same man being responsible?

Thanks,

curious

[Hunter]

We can never really know of course, but it certainly is unique. I'm not sure these details were ever published in the press regarding Annie Chapman's mutilations, so its doubtful this was something copied. Its a clue that might link a common killer.

Then again, this wasn't done to Kate Eddowes.

[caz]

To my (certainly not encyclopaedic) knowledge, the Ripper generally (I am talking generally for the moment) did the following things:

- Located a female victim in a window of time and area within which she was suitably isolated.
- Exerted almost immediate control
- Forced the victim to the ground
- Cut the victim's throat with intent to kill
- Attacked the dead or dying victim with a knife, exhibiting gross overkill
- Did not exhibit hesitation
- Took trophies
- Acted very quickly and left the scene rapidly

In looking at other serial criminals, particularly those who have remained at large for long periods of time -and- also exhibited ritualistic/fetishistic/fantasy based behaviours, it becomes clear that not every crime is committed in precisely the same way, despite the criminal having a 'script', a 'signature' behaviour and a level of consistency shown in the MO (allowing for learned behaviours over time, etc).

In one case, a serial rapist/killer follows his MO, his verbal script entirely, has his victim incapacitated and there is nothing to prevent him continuing - yet he suddenly stops and walks away from the scene without committing rape or murder. Why? It appears to have been something the victim said, which could have, for some reason, completely derailed his fantasy. The comment may have triggered a conflicting emotional response. He may have experienced the killer/rapist's version of an instant soft-on, and was therefore unable to continue his fantasy to its desired conclusion.

I have put this as an example of how a crime definitely linked to others in a series, and sharing many of the same basic elements as his other crimes, did not proceed to the clearly 'signature' stage or desired outcome for a reason known only to the killer.

This same rapist was known to stalk and prepare a crime scene for victims that he did not actually attack, instead for whatever reason attacking a woman a few doors down instead. It appears he simply changed his mind.

(To head off comments re ability to speak with a cut throat, I am not saying the two killers did the same thing, precisely.... just that interruption happens, with an example)

By way of saying, it's entirely possible that Liz Stride's attack, for example, was interrupted in some way or other that may or may not have existed outside the killer's own head, so he then rapidly moved on to the next victim, unwilling to leave his desires unfulfilled.

It's not without precedent, and isn't impossible.

It's pretty reasonable, I think, to view a bunch of crimes within the same limited geographical area, in the same time frame and with similar elements in each of the attacks as very probably committed by the same person, regardless of variation in details.

By which to say, at this time, I'm not really seeing a copycat among the canonical victims.

Excellent post, Ausgirl - summed up concisely by your final two paragraphs.

Serial killers, if we know nothing else about them, do not behave according to anyone else's rules. They can be full of nasty surprises, but their reactions to external and internal stimuli can even surprise themselves.

Love,

Caz
X

[curious]

We can never really know of course, but it certainly is unique. I'm not sure these details were ever published in the press regarding Annie Chapman's mutilations, so its doubtful this was something copied. Its a clue that might link a common killer.

Then again, this wasn't done to Kate Eddowes.

Aren't there also the nicks on the vertebrae that link Chapman and Kelly, or at least two of the victims?

I don't think it's unreasonable to think there were likely little clues throughout the series that are now lost to time, but linked them at least in the minds of the investigators at the time.

[Nick Spring]

Quote from Ausgirl

"It's pretty reasonable, I think, to view a bunch of crimes within the same limited geographical area, in the same time frame and with similar elements in each of the attacks as very probably committed by the same person, regardless of variation in details. "

"By which to say, at this time, I'm not really seeing a copycat among the canonical victims."

Totally agree and one of the most logical and sensible summations I have heard.

Looking objectively this makes sense to me.

[Abby Normal]

Quote from Ausgirl

"It's pretty reasonable, I think, to view a bunch of crimes within the same limited geographical area, in the same time frame and with similar elements in each of the attacks as very probably committed by the same person, regardless of variation in details. "

"By which to say, at this time, I'm not really seeing a copycat among the canonical victims."

Totally agree and one of the most logical and sensible summations I have heard.

Looking objectively this makes sense to me.

Added to which in the annals of crime, there has never, as far as I know, ever been a case where someone has tried to make their murder appear to be that of a serial killer as a way to deflect suspicion . It's the stuff of Hollywood fantasy.