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.

[Mr Lucky]

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.

Hi Nick

Thanks for joining in, the other suggestion that's been made regarding the missing apron was he carried the innards off with it, but neither reason accounts for him leaving half of it and not doing the easy thing and just taking it all.

I just can't buy into a copycat killer overall. Were there really that many psychopath's running around the area.

Well, there's potentially quite a few, If it wasn't Jack who killed Smith, Tabram, Mylett, Mckenzie and Coles then who did? Then there's the Torso killer(s), George Chapman, William Bury and various other drunken wife murderers, Levi Bartlett, etc. a few years later Cream is stalking around Lambeth. So not sure if we can rule it out just on the basis.

It would take a lot to kill in this style.

What about any of the other murders ?

Not sure regarding Stride though.

Well, Stride is the one most often put down as someone else victim, maybe it was the man who killed Tabram , Mckenzie and Coles ?

But really that's a different issue. Stride, who ever killed her, is a very poor copy of the other victims, so the most likely copy-cat victim is probably Eddowes.

[Mr Lucky]

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.

But the Juries are the men who that will not be blamed for nothing.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mr Lucky

Thanks for joining in, the other suggestion that's been made regarding the missing apron was he carried the innards off with it, but neither reason accounts for him leaving half of it and not doing the easy thing and just taking it all.

Possibly because it's a practical apron as the Victorians knew it, rather than a dainty thing like today's...it's secured round the body by a waistband...he'd need either to cut the waistband or the apron. If the latter stretched round Eddowes' flanks (which is entirely possible because, as the photos show, she was a tiny skinny little thing) then he could probably more easily reach/cut the apron than the waistband!

All the best

Dave

[Mr Lucky]

Possibly because it's a practical apron as the Victorians knew it, rather than a dainty thing like today's...it's secured round the body by a waistband...he'd need either to cut the waistband or the apron. If the latter stretched round Eddowes' flanks (which is entirely possible because, as the photos show, she was a tiny skinny little thing) then he could probably more easily reach/cut the apron than the waistband!

Hi Cog,

Thanks, I see your point, but I think if he just slid the blade under the apron he could just cut through the tie, even if he had to lift her a little. However even if that wasn't the case, he's actually cut through a patch/repair so there's no question that the two halves belong together, I just think he's being jolly helpful that's all, which is a bit odd, as he's murdering people and liable to be judiciously killed himself if caught.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

snatch and grab.

Take what's needed leave the rest. Cut off a portion of the apron about the size you need and take with you for whatever reason it happened to be. Also remember the darkness in that corner and brevity. It appears he was working swiftly on the exterior. Grab, cut, proceed. A go go go operation. That and the size of the full apron itself could've been cumbersome or problematic. More difficult to conceal. Snatch and grab. Then piss off like the dickens.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mr Lucky

I see your point, but I think if he just slid the blade under the apron he could just cut through the tie, even if he had to lift her a little

Don't think he had the time for fancy stuff...doing what he did to the body in the time available was pretty rapid as it was...he obviously perceived a need and fulfilled it the quickest way he could...

Hi Dig

Take what's needed leave the rest. Cut off a portion of the apron about the size you need and take with you for whatever reason it happened to be. Also remember the darkness in that corner and brevity. It appears he was working swiftly on the exterior. Grab, cut, proceed. A go go go operation. That and the size of the full apron itself could've been cumbersome or problematic. More difficult to conceal. Snatch and grab. Then piss off like the dickens.

Certainly as regards the apron piece I wholly agree with you!

All the best

Dave

[Mr Lucky]

Take what's needed leave the rest. Cut off a portion of the apron about the size you need and take with you for whatever reason it happened to be. Also remember the darkness in that corner and brevity. It appears he was working swiftly on the exterior. Grab, cut, proceed. A go go go operation. That and the size of the full apron itself could've been cumbersome or problematic. More difficult to conceal. Snatch and grab. Then piss off like the dickens.

Hi Dig,

Parcel size? the difference between half an apron and a full one, really? You think that worth hanging around the crime scene for longer than you need too? Taking the time and trouble to cut the apron in half rather then simply just cut through the tie ?

No, like I've just said, if he gets caught he hangs. He's either insane or sane and if he's sane then he is doing it for some reason that's important (or he's constrained somehow by the location of the article itself like Cog suggests, though that just doesn't seem that likely to me) and if he's insane well who knows?

[Mr Lucky]

Don't think he had the time for fancy stuff...

Hi Cog

No I don't either. That's why I can't understand why he simply didn't cut through the apron tie. That's my point, why take more time than you need too?

Cutting through the tie would be quickest, even cutting through the un-repaired apron would be quicker than cutting through the repaired bit.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Mr. Lucky.

Hi Cog

No I don't either. That's why I can't understand why he simply didn't cut through the apron tie. That's my point, why take more time than you need too?

Cutting through the tie would be quickest, even cutting through the un-repaired apron would be quicker than cutting through the repaired bit.

I will reiterate about the darkness. He may not have been able to see it with any clarity. And he is apparently fond of using a knife if the murder is any indicator. Not saying this is the decided case, but a relevant factor is the darkness.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

If she had been ripped a little bit, would we think her killer had been interrupted ?

Ooh, let me see. I'd say 33% of us would think he had; 33% of us would think he hadn't; 33% of us would think possibly, or possibly not; and the remaining 1% would insist the killer was mythical and put Stride's death down to suicide or an accident with the boot scraper.

What would you think? I'd plump for the possibly, possibly not.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why must the killer use the same knife in the same way every time? I might suggest an aspect to consider is motivation. What were the motivations for each murder? That may help raise or lower the likelhood of a copycat.

Hi Diggy,

Motivation is the very last thing we can judge, without knowing who killed any of these women, or if there was anything connecting victim and killer beyond the actual encounter that led to murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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 GM,

It makes much more sense to me than a copycat. I can't believe the killer was completely ignorant of the media sensation he was becoming in the wake of his first couple of attacks (whether that included Tabram or not). So why not keep changing the goalposts and keep 'em all guessing, when they were coming out with all these theories about who he was, what he was, how he was doing it and why?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Dig,

We cannot be sure what his motivations were, we can test ideas and see how well they fit. For example, the believe is generally held, that the motive for Nichols killer was that he was after her uterus, just like the killer of Chapman; but that doesn't actually fit with the injuries on Nichols, nor the type of knife used on Nichols. So this motive was never suggested until after the Chapman killing, previously the injuries to Nichols abdomen were done by a maniac, and this means that, almost by definition that there was no known motive for them.

I don't think too many people today would go along with the early theory that the motive for murdering and mutilating any of these unfortunate women was to obtain their uteri. My belief is that the killer did what he did, and took what he took, because he could, and the shock value to his waiting audience was a bonus.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

It's funny, but this aspect has never bothered me in the least. Maybe it's because I find it mind boggling enough that anyone would want to cut throats and remove innards, regardless of what they choose to do with it all afterwards. But the fact remains that someone did.

It's the idea of three or four of the buggers, almost within spitting distance, wanting to do much the same in such a small space of time, to the same type of victim, that I find most mind boggling of all. But of course we are free to accept or reject mere ideas.

Love,

Caz
X