What did the copy-cat killer copy?

[Michael W Richards]

Mike,

I can say that someone could have planned to kill people with some similarities, such as approach and speed, but also could have changed the details. Good actors can play different roles in the same play with different accents, different character, and different movements and can be totally unrecognizable stylistically from role to role. Why could a murderer not do the same, change it up a bit? There was plenty of time between killings in which to decide what to do differently if one wanted to.

Then again, different knives, different lighting, different moods, different states of inebriation, different levels of police presence, different physical issues...all these things could account for any perceived differences....or there are a dozen mimics running around.

Mike

Mike,

Would your presumption be that Annie Chapmans killer was simply a murderer then, just trying out ideas?

EVERY murder has a motive,...and simply killing her wasnt Annie Chapmans killers motive. What was the apparent motive for killing Liz Stride...based on the evidence of course? Or Mary Kelly...if indeed she was in her own room and undressed when her killer attacked her?

Why these women were killed seems too elusive a target for you maybe?

Cheers Mike

[Michael W Richards]

The medical opinion provided in Annie Chapmans Inquest....

"[Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? "

"[Phillips] I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste. "

[Baxter...in summation] "There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it."

...."Moreover, when we find an easily accomplished theft of some paltry brass rings and such an operation, after, at least, a quarter of an hour's work, and by a skilled person, we are driven to the deduction that the mutilation was the object, and the theft of the rings was only a thin-veiled blind, an attempt to prevent the real intention being discovered. Had not the medical examination been of a thorough and searching character, it might easily have been left unnoticed. The difficulty in believing that this was the real purport of the murderer is natural. It is abhorrent to our feelings to conclude that a life should be taken for so slight an object; but, when rightly considered, the reasons for most murders are altogether out of proportion to the guilt."

Even Baxter says its natural to doubt that the obtaining of the organ targeted was the reason for the murder....but his own feelings, and Phillips, are clear.

Annie was killed by someone intent on killing her and cutting out her Uterus afterward. End of medical experts story.

Cheers

[Damaso Marte]

There are clearly cuts in Nichols that are "meaningless" in a medical sense, and nobody denies that her killer is the same as Chapman's.

[Hunter]

There were meaningless cuts on Chapman too, despite what Baxter said. He even contradicted himself when he postulated that the other injuries were a 'ruse' to conceal the real intent of taking the uterus.

Annie Chapman was eviscerated, flaps of abdominal skin removed and placed over the shoulders. Her intestines were removed. None of that was required to remove a uterus.

At that stage, they just weren't able to determine what might be happening.

Hell, we still don't know what happened.

[curious4]

Oiled silk

I wonder if the killer didn't put the organs in something he brought with then put inside the apron piece. Or if he did have a recepticle if it was not sufficient for both the uterus and kidney. Hand wiping or knife wiping doesn't float so well with me given the lack of stuff on it. Yes leaving the apron may been a tactic to divert attention. Especially if he lived very close to their. Go home after murder. Deposit and clean up. Take a short walk and leave the apron. Go back home. Place it further away from the crime scene than his residence was.

Hello Dig,

Straying a little bit off thread now, but I have considered a piece or bag of oiled silk carried in the pocket. Takes no room and water and body fluids-proof. Alternately, an oiled silk pocket in his jacket or trouser pocket of the sort you find in hunting and shooting jackets, called a game pocket.

All good wishes,

Gwyneth/C4

P.S. Rereading Bob Hinton's "From Hell" - I find it excellent, sometimes chilling and very informative. Although I don't agree with his conclusion. Well worth reading if you haven't already.

[caz]

Thanks for biting. There aren't really any apparent motivations for these killings. Especially the ones with mutilations. Killing for killing's sake? Or rather the killer(s) enjoyed it killing?

Yes, I can dig that, Diggy.

At least it seems a hell of a lot more likely than several killers all picking themselves a Spitalfields unfortunate to do in, for a variety of different motives, ranging from menopausal uterus collecting to jealousy, revenge or even links to Fenian activity.

It's supposed to be the killer who gets to be irrational, not the investigators.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Well, I'd be tempted to put her down as another boot scrapper suicide, like the Pinchin street torso !!

I really don't know actually , Caz, but the series victim count, pre-double event was still seen by most as four;- Smith onwards, so the killer may have assumed that there would be no question that Stride would be considered as anyone else's victim, The idea of killers having a fixed MO wasn't a contemporary idea as far as I know, so if he had killed all four (or even just Tabram onwards), then he hadn't had a fixed MO up to that point anyway, so why would he feel the need to start with Stride?

Fair points Mr Lucky, but anyone trying to imitate the man who may have stabbed one woman 39 times; gone on to open up another woman's abdomen after slitting her throat; then done a more thorough butchering job on a third, would surely have had the imagination to do a bit more than the single neck wound which (fortunately for him) permanently silenced Stride - if he had the time to do so before needing to flee the scene.

And that if is rather crucial here, because it applies equally to the ripper or a not very convincing copycat.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Mike,

Would your presumption be that Annie Chapmans killer was simply a murderer then, just trying out ideas?

EVERY murder has a motive,...and simply killing her wasnt Annie Chapmans killers motive. What was the apparent motive for killing Liz Stride...based on the evidence of course? Or Mary Kelly...if indeed she was in her own room and undressed when her killer attacked her?

Why these women were killed seems too elusive a target for you maybe?

Cheers Mike

Mike, an unidentified and probably unidentifiable killer's motive is going to be too elusive a target for anyone, you included. You simple cannot expect to judge the motive for any of these crimes on the evidence we have and with nobody in the frame. It's guesswork, pure and simple, and some guesses are merely a lot more ludicrous than others.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

would your presumption be that Annie Chapmans killer was simply a murderer then, just trying out ideas?

EVERY murder has a motive,...and simply killing her wasnt Annie Chapmans killers motive. What was the apparent motive for killing Liz Stride...based on the evidence of course? Or Mary Kelly...if indeed she was in her own room and undressed when her killer attacked her?

Why these women were killed seems too elusive a target for you maybe?

I only stated that one man doing different things is as likely a scenario as 3 copycats. I don't believe either thing is probable. As for whys. Why did Bundy kill? Why did Fish (not Fishman)? Why did Son of Sam? There are no answers to these whys. There never have been.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Some serial killers have deliberately changed their MO to try and throw the police off the scent. As The Good Michael says that is as likely an explanation as different killers. Much more likely actually as random killers of women by knife were exceptionally rare. For a collection of such killers to be running around in one small location in one small time frame is bordering on ridiculous as a hypothesis.

[The Good Michael]

For a collection of such killers to be running around in one small location in one small time frame is bordering on ridiculous as a hypothesis.

It doesn't just border. It is downright nutty. Let's say there were..oh 7 victims and only two of those were done by the same man. That means in this tiny area there were 5 more men that wanted to kill someone in this small end of London, and thought, "Now's our chance." They probably bought their cutlery at the same shop.

Mike

[Mr Lucky]

Fair points Mr Lucky, but anyone trying to imitate the man who may have stabbed one woman 39 times; gone on to open up another woman's abdomen after slitting her throat; then done a more thorough butchering job on a third, would surely have had the imagination to do a bit more than the single neck wound which (fortunately for him) permanently silenced Stride

Hi Caz,

Yes, even Beadmore's killer, Waddle, made a better attempt.

if he had the time to do so before needing to flee the scene.

And that if is rather crucial here, because it applies equally to the ripper or a not very convincing copycat.

The Stride crime scene, doesn't itself give any reason to suppose that her killer had been interrupted, other than the presumption that her killer would have mutilated her abdomen with the intent on stealing her innards. Which is a similar retroactive reason to that given for the interruption at the Nichols crime scene. In neither case was there any indication of any actual interruption, - no one heard running away for example.

So, the copycat either had a stroke of good fortune, when the real killer murdered Eddowes shortly afterwards, which then made the killing of Stride appear to be a 'failed' ripper attack, or the copy cat killer was really interrupted and unable to stage a realistic attempt at making a Whitechapel job of her.

However the most logical explanation for the only 'clue' at the scene - the cachous still being in her hand, is that the killer had placed them there after her murder, if so (and OK, that is a big IF), then it would appear that there was no actual interruption, but rather some kind of staging of the scene, But none of the previous victims were found with anything in hand, so where would the copy-cat get that idea from?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Caz

Yes, I can dig that, Diggy.


...It's supposed to be the killer who gets to be irrational, not the investigators.

Love,

Caz
X

Ha! Yes. Well being irrational within reason is fine, right?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Cachous

I don't think it is possible to achieve the situation after she is dead. Hullo Mr. Cates?

[caz]

It doesn't just border. It is downright nutty. Let's say there were..oh 7 victims and only two of those were done by the same man. That means in this tiny area there were 5 more men that wanted to kill someone in this small end of London, and thought, "Now's our chance." They probably bought their cutlery at the same shop.

Mike

If they tried writing a script for Midsomer Murders, that involved five dear old ladies in twin sets and pearls getting beaten to death a few days or weeks apart, as each set off for a coffee morning in their little village, and the detective in charge of the case announced at the end that three of them had been murdered by imitators, for three completely separate motives, one can just imagine the howls of derision and disappointment, as "far-fetched drivel" was taken to an entirely new level.

Love,

Caz
X