What did the copy-cat killer copy?

[Wickerman]

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.

It's not so much whether there was one killer or more, but where to draw the line - that is the dominant issue.

No-one, not seriously anyway, has ever proposed one person was responsible for all 13? Whitechapel murders. So the question is, and always has been, where to, and by what rationale, do we divide the victims up.

[Mr Lucky]

It's not so much whether there was one killer or more, but where to draw the line - that is the dominant issue.

No-one, not seriously anyway, has ever proposed one person was responsible for all 13? Whitechapel murders.

Hi Wickerman,

Well I think we should just stick with the standard eleven -
Smith,Tabram,Nichols,Chapman,Stride,Eddowes,Kelly, Mylett,MacKenzie,Pinchin torso, Coles

Of those personally I'm largely excluding Smith and Pinchin st.

So the question is, and always has been, where to, and by what rationale, do we divide the victims up.

Hold on! Not here!, this is something different, what I'm trying to look at here isn't a case of us, as a group, dividing the victims up according to some categories that we are imposing on the information connected to the murders, (whatever that may be - location, number of throat wounds, TOD, etc - as these grouping can be arranged to cover almost all permutations of the victims, as there are so many different parameters available), but rather looking at the murders as a fixed sequence of events and looking at the murders in the context of the information available to both the serial killer [non-public and public domain] or the alleged lone copy-cat [public domain only]. Some aspects of these murders change from one to the next, others remain the same, which of these two theoretical models actually fits the changing crime scene evidence better ?

One other thing - it's the killer of Chapman that's effectively given us the 'clue' that the killer of Nichols was 'interrupted', helpful sole that he was, perhaps we could leave these asynchronous 'clues' aside for a while and look at things afresh.

[Wickerman]

Hi Mr Lucky.

Some aspects of these murders change from one to the next, others remain the same, which of these two theoretical models actually fits the changing crime scene evidence better ?

As a point of interest, have you read about the Yorkshire Ripper murders, and considered the similarities & differences that Sutcliffe was responsible for?

One other thing - it's the killer of Chapman that's effectively given us the 'clue' that the killer of Nichols was 'interrupted', helpful sole that he was, perhaps we could leave these asynchronous 'clues' aside for a while and look at things afresh.

Yes, I think the killer of Nichols was interrupted.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Wickerman

As a point of interest, have you read about the Yorkshire Ripper murders, and considered the similarities & differences that Sutcliffe was responsible for?

I'm really trying to leave the asynchronous analysis alone - never mind jumping 90 years into the future!, but if you feel it's relevant, I know a little of him, why?

Yes, I think the killer of Nichols was interrupted

Ok, why do you think that ?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

I'm really trying to leave the asynchronous analysis alone

What about time?

- never mind jumping 90 years into the future!, but if you feel it's relevant, I know a little of him, why?

Anyone who feels that differences in Signature can only be accounted for by another hand at work really needs to read, Wicked Beyond Belief.
The Yorkshire Ripper case should be required reading for some, but if this aspect is of no interest to you...

Ok, why do you think that ?

A circumstantial case has been made over the wounds inflicted on her.

[Stewart P Evans]

Bond

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

I guessed that someone knowledgeable would mention that.

There was a bit of a status battle going on between Bond and Phillips and I think that Bond would have disagreed with any conclusion that Phillips came to. The police opinion was similarly divided but the general feeling that emerged was that it was not another Ripper killing. Obviously Macnaghten agreed with Bond's 1888 assessment but did not subscribe to the inclusion of McKenzie.

Bond obviously reported on the torso cases but, as far as I know, did not state that they or the Coles case were Ripper related.

[curious]

There was a bit of a status battle going on between Bond and Phillips and I think that Bond would have disagreed with any conclusion that Phillips came to.

Hello, Mr. Evans,
In light of the status battle and Bond's desire to be "top dog," how much faith do you put into his conclusions?

Do you draw any conclusions over which doctor's ideas you believe more?

Thanks,
curious

[Hunter]

Bond looked for psychological signs in the evidence. He had already profiled the killer. Phillips looked at the physical evidence literally and based his opinions on that. He didn't care what Krafft-Ebbing might have written.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Wickerman

What about time?

I have no idea why you have said that. 'What about time' indeed

Anyone who feels that differences in Signature can only be accounted for by another hand at work really needs to read, Wicked Beyond Belief.

Well, I'll pass on your advise if I should encounter such a person

The Yorkshire Ripper case should be required reading for some, but if this aspect is of no interest to you...

The Yorkshire ripper case happened 90-odd YEARS AFTER the Whitechapel murders, how it could possibly have any baring on the behaviour of the people I'm trying to look at here - the hypothetical learning serial killer, a potential copy-cat killer, or the investigators themselves I have no idea.

It is my belief that we will stand a far better chance of understanding what was actually happening, if the information we have is dealt with in the same sequence it was created.

If you genuinely believe otherwise - tear the pages out of your Yorkshire ripper book and read them at random, and see where that gets you!

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

Had it ? This is the sort of thing that they said at the time;-

No one who murdered Mary Ann Nicholls for the sake of the little money she might have happened to possess would have stopped to inflict more wounds than were necessary for his purpose. Moreover, it seems to be the accepted opinion that the wounds on the lower part of the body were inflicted before the throat was cut; and it is difficult to believe that anybody whose only object was plunder would have inflicted them at all. There are shorter and readier ways of taking human life than this - Evening standard 1 Sept. 1888

125 years later, thanks to reading a book about Sutcliffe, you've got a different opinion ?

[caz]

One other thing - it's the killer of Chapman that's effectively given us the 'clue' that the killer of Nichols was 'interrupted', helpful sole that he was...

He should have known his plaice and shown a clean pair of 'eels.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I guessed that someone knowledgeable would mention that.

There was a bit of a status battle going on between Bond and Phillips and I think that Bond would have disagreed with any conclusion that Phillips came to. The police opinion was similarly divided but the general feeling that emerged was that it was not another Ripper killing. Obviously Macnaghten agreed with Bond's 1888 assessment but did not subscribe to the inclusion of McKenzie.

Bond obviously reported on the torso cases but, as far as I know, did not state that they or the Coles case were Ripper related.

Cheers Stewart. Rather scary to think that any supposedly reputable medical man might have altered his professional opinions over a status battle with one of his peers!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Mr. Lucky,

You quoted:

No one who murdered Mary Ann Nicholls for the sake of the little money she might have happened to possess would have stopped to inflict more wounds than were necessary for his purpose. Moreover, it seems to be the accepted opinion that the wounds on the lower part of the body were inflicted before the throat was cut; and it is difficult to believe that anybody whose only object was plunder would have inflicted them at all. There are shorter and readier ways of taking human life than this - Evening standard 1 Sept. 1888

But this was written a week before the first victim had any organs removed, so I'm not sure why you feel it is evidence that Nichols's killer did all he meant to do and wasn't interrupted. He could have been experimenting with the order and nature of cuts, and for all we know he might only have stopped when he heard footsteps and judged it unsafe to try anything else.

The reporter is saying that her killer went way over the top if he had merely wanted to rob the poor woman. He implies there is a mystery therefore as to why the abdomen was targeted at all. A week later, of course, the mystery was solved for anyone who believed Chapman was a victim of the same man - the bugger was targeting abdomens, and trying to plunder not only their contents but possibly rings or other material possessions too.

Easy then to see how a Buck's Row interruption theory might have come about.

However, I'm not sure it could be proved either way. Any of these attacks (even in Miller's Court) could have been cut short by something or someone spooking the killer. How would we ever tell if a job had been completed to his complete satisfaction?

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

In a general response to those who questioned my comments a few pages ago, Im sure its clear that I differ in opinion to those who allow for a very flexible and multi layered killer profile when reviewing these five cases in particular. Its obvious that to associate the Five with one killer people would need a good explanation for the variances in the crimes, particularly since some within the Five are so similar. I also believe that interrupted crimes must have some clear and decisive physical evidence present to allow for that supposition.

Which means, for me, the murders that seem most similar, with similar styles, similar attributes and similar victimology, are most likely linked by the killer, or killers. Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Eddowes being the most questionable, since I believe that the progression shown from Nichols to Chapman, (the victims similar "situation" at the time of the killing...one being inebriated and one being ill, both soliciting,.... the unusual double cuts and abdominal mutilation fixation, the change of venue so that more time could be had in private with the dying woman,...), indicates a consistent approach and a consistent preoccupation.

So the question of "copy cat" murders is an easy one to manage....any other murders within the Unsolved Whitechapel file that appear to have major differences in that approach and with that preoccupation but have similar injuries are probably not connected to those 2 or 3 victims by killer.

If you can accept an idea that they arrested or institutionalized someone for at least some of the murders that took place in the Fall of 88, then you might see possible evidence of the differences based on an incarceration date. If for example someone was taken into custody at an Institution shortly after the second murder in Sept88, and this person was strongly suspected for those first 2 murders...maybe identified by witnesses for the morning of Chapmans murder, then murder 3 and 5, or 3,4 and 5 would have to be done by someone else...and therefore would have been imitations, where the applicable circumstances have some similarity. Meaning Kate and Mary.

That to me explains why the cuts on Kate were so different from Annies, why Marys murder varies in so many ways from the first 2, how the police could legitimately claim that someone was institutionalized and suspected for at least some of the murders, and why the police might still have kept all the murders together in the file as unsolved...because they still could have had a multiple murderer in there and they never proved any case against the suspect for the first 2 murders, and why they would be alerted by later murders with some similarities.

Liz Strides death may well have been untimely in many ways, and not connected at all to the other unsolved cases. Thats because there is no evidence that suggests her killer was not just a thug and a one-time killer.

Best regards

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Pete

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??
Quick reply to this message

Well for a detailed analysis of the wounds/techniques you might want to check out the Karyo Magellan book, "By Ear and Eyes"...I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions but it's a worthwhile read...

And yes I'm aware no knife was involved with Mylett - but if you read back in the thread you'll discover that a theory was being discussed regarding the victims being strangulated or otherwise throttled, in order to facilitate their subjection prior to throat-cutting...something you yourself commented upon...

And the non-appearance of the knife was beinq quoted as possible evidence of interruption in the Mylett case...

What indeed is the world coming to?

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

I have no idea why you have said that. 'What about time' indeed

I was asking you, "what has time got to do with it?"

Asynchronous - something not synchronized with respect to time.

I took it you were interested in recognising some kind of symmetry between the various murders, repetition, duplication, etc.
Did you mean Asymmetric, or ...what?

The Yorkshire ripper case happened 90-odd YEARS AFTER the Whitechapel murders, how it could possibly have any baring on the behaviour of the people I'm trying to look at here - the hypothetical learning serial killer, a potential copy-cat killer, or the investigators themselves I have no idea.

Wicked Beyond Belief introduces the reader to the learning curve of a serial killer, and a possible copy-cat element is considered, and the reasons why.

It is my belief that we will stand a far better chance of understanding what was actually happening, if the information we have is dealt with in the same sequence it was created.

Isn't that the normal procedure?

Had it ? This is the sort of thing that they said at the time;-

Caz already dealt with this but, considering your previous suggestion about dealing with things in the correct sequence, maybe you could start by reading those newspaper articles in the correct sequence