What did the copy-cat killer copy?

[caz]

Me too, Damaso.

I also think Mylett's death could be explained by a killer rapidly going off the boil after Kelly and finding himself outdoors again in the depths of winter. I think it was only luck that Kelly turned out to have a room of her own to offer Jack.

Serial killers tend to like their creature comforts.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

I'm in agreement with you there Caz.
My instinct tells me that Kelly took her killer back to her place and it was an unexpected bonus for him - which he may not have had the opportunity to recreate - even if he had wanted to.
He may have felt deflated after it and realised he preferred doing it the 'old way'.
It's a bit puerile in a way speculating as we cannot hope to get into his mind. All those theories that he must have known Kelly because of the face mutilation are similarly foundationless.
Mylett could easily have been an instance where he was disturbed after the strangulation but before the knife came out. The person who disturbed him may not even have realised.
Mackenzie could easily have been a rushed job.
Maybe Mackenzie and Mylett illustrate increased jumpyness - nervousness and anxiety about getting caught.

[caz]

All those theories that he must have known Kelly because of the face mutilation are similarly foundationless.

Hi Lech,

I particularly agree with you here. I find it astonishing actually, in view of the fact that we have the precedent set by Eddowes and her facial mutilations, staring at us from just 40 days previously and a few minutes' stroll away. Yet people still see Kelly's killer as a one-off who must have gone for her face by pure coincidence, as the instinctive act of a vengeful lover, and therefore bugger all to do with Eddowes or her killer.

There is very little wrong with taking some things about this case at face value, rather than endlessly looking for alternatives that don't offer a better explanation. If it ain't broke...

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

So......I can safely assume that all the posters who recently stated that they thought the Mackenzie murder was a re-start by the same "serial" killer of the Fall of 88 believe that all the statements made by senior officials about an institutionalized killer responsible for the Canonicals were incorrect or lies....that any speculation about Druitt being the killer was false or a lie, and that the killer we should be looking for cuts throats once or twice, sometimes cuts after killing, and has no set pattern or method.

Sounds like a man who its assumed only changes his colors to facilitate serial killer speculation myself.

When things are alike, thats one thing. When things are dissimilar, they are not alike....and its best not to revise the parameters so the argument can be made all things are actually alike.

So Jack stabs, sometimes just cuts once, guts sometimes, stops when he feels like it and kills women in their homes or out on the street.

And that seems reasonable? Hardly.

Cheers

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Michael

So......I can safely assume that all the posters who recently stated that they thought the Mackenzie murder was a re-start by the same "serial" killer of the Fall of 88 believe that all the statements made by senior officials about an institutionalized killer responsible for the Canonicals were incorrect or lies....that any speculation about Druitt being the killer was false or a lie, and that the killer we should be looking for cuts throats once or twice, sometimes cuts after killing, and has no set pattern or method.

I have made it no secret that I think that the killer is Cross.

Sounds like a man who its assumed only changes his colors to facilitate serial killer speculation myself.

No not really, as I stated earlier, I think the killer is attempting to throw the investigators off the scent by changing his behaviour and attempting to implicate who ever he thinks is the most likely suspect in the minds of the investigators, this is largely information that he gained from press and the world around him, this means that there is a possible comparison to be made between this type of killer and with a 'copy-cat killer'

Both types will show signs of the copying from the press behaviour, however, unlike the copy-cat, only the genuine killer would be capable of repeating what wasn't reported in the press, and only the genuine killer would be aware of information that was not in the public domain.

As I noted earlier this doesn't change the fact that other interpretations to the crime scene evidence are possible

When things are alike, thats one thing. When things are dissimilar, they are not alike....and its best not to revise the parameters so the argument can be made all things are actually alike.

So Jack stabs, sometimes just cuts once, guts sometimes, stops when he feels like it and kills women in their homes or out on the street.

And that seems reasonable? Hardly.

For what it's worth, I don't think the killer exhibits behaviour typical of the modern understanding of the serial killer, it doesn't fit very well with just the C5, never mind the other Whitechapel murders, but this is true of some other known killers, too.

[Damaso Marte]

So......I can safely assume that all the posters who recently stated that they thought the Mackenzie murder was a re-start by the same "serial" killer of the Fall of 88 believe that all the statements made by senior officials about an institutionalized killer responsible for the Canonicals were incorrect or lies....that any speculation about Druitt being the killer was false or a lie, and that the killer we should be looking for cuts throats once or twice, sometimes cuts after killing, and has no set pattern or method.

Sounds like a man who its assumed only changes his colors to facilitate serial killer speculation myself.

When things are alike, thats one thing. When things are dissimilar, they are not alike....and its best not to revise the parameters so the argument can be made all things are actually alike.

So Jack stabs, sometimes just cuts once, guts sometimes, stops when he feels like it and kills women in their homes or out on the street.

And that seems reasonable? Hardly.

Cheers

All of this seems reasonable to me, actually. I don't require my killer to have an identical MO each time.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello again,

I think that the issue of evident motive supercedes the differences in the actual damage inflicted, because its my contention that killers kill for various reasons, and not always merely to satisfy an urge to take life. All the talk of MO and Signature aside, whats really critical is evidence that shows the consistent pursuit of an objective. The talk of serial killers choosing to perform only certain acts when they kill presupposes that A, the killer is in some sort of control emotionally and physically, and B, that the killer can be satisfied by a range of actions, rather than by one or 2 specific actions he might crave.

In the case of Annie Chapman, any individual element of the actions taken could have been his main driver, not just the taking of life. Could have been that he sought organs, or to mutilate, or to strangle, or to be killing someone outdoors at great risk. We don't know why at this point, but I believe its reasonable to say that whatever the driver, we would see it again if he kills again.

That's why missing elements, or random slashes and cuts seem to me to signal different killers with different objectives.

Cheers

[Damaso Marte]

I think it's perfectly plausible for a killer to have the more general desire of "I want to kill women and cut them up" than the more specific desire of "I want to kill women, cut their throats twice, and then cut their abdominal cavity only". If you look at the C5 minus Stride plus Tabram and Mackenzie, you have a lot of commonalities: the women were all subdued, lowered to the ground, cut on the throat and abdomen, presented in a similar way. Some had stabs, some didn't, some had organs removed, some didn't, some had facial mutilations, some didn't, but if you're looking for something consistent through all of them it's there.

I don't require anything more specific or detailed from a serial killer. You apparently do.

Do you reject Nichols and Chapman being done by the same hand, btw? Very different abdominal wounds between the two of them.

[Mr Lucky]

In the case of Annie Chapman, any individual element of the actions taken could have been his main driver, not just the taking of life. Could have been that he sought organs, or to mutilate, or to strangle, or to be killing someone outdoors at great risk.

Hi Michael

What about the fake robbery indications with the stolen brass rings, even Baxter thought that it was a 'thin veiled blind', could that have been his main driver?

'We are driven to the deduction that the abstraction of the missing portion of abdominal viscera was the object, and the theft of the rings was only a thin veiled blind, an attempt to prevent the real intention being discovered.' -Echo 26 Sept. 1888

[Cogidubnus]

Keeping an open mind...

One of the objections I keep hearing with reference to multiple-killer theories, (held by those like Lynn for example), is "how many killers do you think were floating round the East End?" or, more explicitly "How many knife killers do you think were floating around the East End?".

Yet the same parties seem quite content to accept that Tabram, McKenzie, Mylett, Coles etc were all victims of separate killers...

Leaving aside disturbance theories, (again surely just as valid vis a vis Mylett as Stride?), are we not still being asked to apply double standards - one set to the canon, another to those without? Why?

Are the canon, taken as a whole that lacking in variation by comparison with some of those without? Truly how homogenous are they? Are those without so very different from some of those within?

There are some thought-provoking posts in this thread, which make me ask, like others before, just which are the copycat killings?

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

The canon was almost certainly concocted by Macnaghten to bolster his case against a dubious suspect.
I keep an open mind about all the unexplained deaths around that period and within reasonable distance.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Canonical Five'

The term 'canonical five' is of fairly recent origin and has always met with objections, especially in light of the fact that many seek to include Martha Tabram as the first victim of a common killer, an idea that was popular in the early 20th century.

There is, of course, no such thing as a 'canonical five' as even amongst those five, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, objections have been raised as to the inclusion of Stride and/or Kelly (and Eddowes for that matter). But the true situation is that all the murders under 'the Whitechapel murders' umbrella were (and are) unsolved and we simply do not know, exactly, which may be attributed to a common hand. Each should be considered on its individual merits whilst bearing the others in mind. There are plenty of debates, though, discussing the merits of all, as a search of the archives will reveal.

The first person to list the five murders as attributable to a common hand was Dr. Thomas Bond in his report to the police dated 10 November 1888. In point 1 he states, 'All five murders (Buck's Row to Miller's Court) were no doubt committed by the same hand...' Thus, if you accept Bond's ideas and reject the later murders (Mylett, McKenzie, Pinchin Street, and Coles) which the police seem to have done, then you are left with 'the canonical five'. The most popular modern viewpoint seems to be to include Tabram with a possibility (as per Sugden) of including McKenzie and Coles.

Emma Smith appears to have been the victim of street thugs, Tabram possibly the victim of a soldier, Mylett victim of a client(s), McKenzie the victim of a 'client', Pinchin Street an unrelated ('torso') murder and Coles possibly the victim of a drunken Sadler.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Cog,

One of the objections I keep hearing with reference to multiple-killer theories, (held by those like Lynn for example), is "how many killers do you think were floating round the East End?" or, more explicitly "How many knife killers do you think were floating around the East End?".

I think the argument that it is just 'too unlikely' for more than one killer to be about at the same time is a poor one, and I have considered the multiple killer idea in the past, but ultimately, the multiple-killer idea just unnecessarily complicates the issue (two unknowns instead of one! or three or four...), so unless it can be used to actually resolve some aspect of the crime series I think the working assumption should be that there was just one killer. But then that goes back to the definition of 'resolves some aspect' of the crimes....

Yet the same parties seem quite content to accept that Tabram, McKenzie, Mylett, Coles etc were all victims of separate killers...

Leaving aside disturbance theories, (again surely just as valid vis a vis Mylett as Stride?), are we not still being asked to apply double standards - one set to the canon, another to those without? Why?

perhaps overall the perspective we have collectively is still based around the concept of the C5, many students of the case don't have much opinion beyond that grouping, some are actually limited in this by the particular suspect they favour, e g - Druitt cannot have killed post-Kelly, so this leaves many of the non-C5 out in the cold to some degree, for some reason or other, so the claim that the killer of a non-C5 was someone other then the killer of the C5 is always going to be less controversial than the exclusion of a C5 victim. Ultimately the non-C5 may just attract less attention, Tabram possibly more than the rest, but then hardly anything is known about the Smith murder and Coles is perhaps a different kettle of fish altogether, being more like a standard murder case with a tangible suspect in the form of Sadler, rather than a true 'mystery' like the other cases.

Are the canon, taken as a whole that lacking in variation by comparison with some of those without? Truly how homogenous are they? Are those without so very different from some of those within?

This variation/lack of needs more analysis I agree. As I mentioned earlier I think the throat wounds of all the Whitechapel victims needs more direct comparison. (perhaps this has been done but I don't know about it.) though if you include Mylett as a victim, one thing to note is there is no knife involved !! - we have already lost "Jack the Ripper's" trademark cape, top hat, and black Gladstone bag - now he hasn't got a knife, either, what is the world coming too??

[caz]

I think that the issue of evident motive supercedes the differences in the actual damage inflicted, because its my contention that killers kill for various reasons, and not always merely to satisfy an urge to take life.

Hi Mike,

But what motive is really 'evident' from any of the damage inflicted in any of the Whitechapel cases from Smith to Coles? Of course killers kill for various reasons, but without having a jolly good idea who killed any of these women, you are not with the best will in the world going to be able to guess at anyone's motives.

It is my contention that if we could only nail the bugger wot murdered, say, Chapman, and find out everything we could about his life, his work, his interests, his personality and crucially his other opportunities to kill, only then could we get a reasonably good idea of his motives and which murders would remain to be solved.

All the talk of MO and Signature aside, whats really critical is evidence that shows the consistent pursuit of an objective. The talk of serial killers choosing to perform only certain acts when they kill presupposes that A, the killer is in some sort of control emotionally and physically, and B, that the killer can be satisfied by a range of actions, rather than by one or 2 specific actions he might crave.

I think you are missing at least a C here, if not a D, E, F and all the way to Z. How about the serial killer who is only partially, or not always in control emotionally and physically (alcohol playing a part with most adult males back then, especially well into the evening), or one who would like to perform certain acts and not others, but is at the mercy of factors beyond his control too numerous to list? The possibilities and explanations for any killer of any type not being able to satisfy whatever urges he has on any particular occasion must be endless, yet you want your killer(s) to come with labels saying exactly what their objectives were or were not, just using the very limited crime scene evidence.

I have to say, Mike, that you really have your work cut out by seeing your killer(s) in this black and white way, and I don't envy you for it.

In the case of Annie Chapman, any individual element of the actions taken could have been his main driver, not just the taking of life. Could have been that he sought organs, or to mutilate, or to strangle, or to be killing someone outdoors at great risk. We don't know why at this point, but I believe its reasonable to say that whatever the driver, we would see it again if he kills again.

And that is precisely what I don't consider reasonable, because too many factors beyond any killer's control, internal as well as external, are going to change from one attack to another. And that's even if you were able to correctly pinpoint what his 'driver' is and isn't, from any one of these unsolved Whitechapel cases.

The same man can never jump into the same river twice.

That's why missing elements, or random slashes and cuts seem to me to signal different killers with different objectives.

Or one killer with one overall objective - to overpower as many women as he can - in whatever way he is able and/or takes his fancy. And I don't mean one man for every single attack, but certainly IMHO one man for several of them. Only that man can say which attacks satisfied his objectives on each occasion, or which failed and why. It's something we could never hope to guess if we stared at the evidence until doomsday.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The first person to list the five murders as attributable to a common hand was Dr. Thomas Bond in his report to the police dated 10 November 1888.

Hi Stewart,

Naturally Dr. Bond's report could only reflect the seven murders up to and including Kelly, but if he went on the following year to attribute McKenzie to that same 'common hand', his personal total became a round half dozen. Do you happen to know if he offered any opinion on the torso murders or Coles?

Thanks.

Love,

Caz
X