What did the copy-cat killer copy?

[Hunter]

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!

Unlikely. Medicos such as these were called to give medical evidence often and often disagreed. Bond had several high profile cases where he disagreed with his colleagues over interpretation of evidence.

In his post-mortem report on Alice McKenzie, Phillips hints that Gordon Brown disagreed with his conclusions about the murderer, although agreeing with the rest of the evidence deduced at the examination. And Phillips had called on Brown to assist in the autopsy. Brown and Phillips worked together professionally in this series from the 'double event' on.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Caz,

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.

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 !

Let's just leave aside what you or I think was going to happen to Nichols but didn’t, and just stick with what had happened. - There was no evidence of any kind of attempted organ theft, and there was no evidence that the killer was interrupted. And no-one would ever have thought otherwise, if it wasn't for the 'clues' the killer of Chapman kindly left us.

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.

Yes - the killer solved the mystery of the Nichols murder for us!!, as I’ve said before, what a helpful fellow.

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

Chapman murder scene ?

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?

Ok, pick one -
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.

P.S. Your fishy puns have left me floundering, btw

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Michael

I also believe that interrupted crimes must have some clear and decisive physical evidence present to allow for that supposition.

Yes I heartily agree, only Coles, even begins to fit this definition for me.

Certainly not Nichols and certainly not Stride.

[Mr Lucky]

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...

Hi Cog,

Ok, cheers for the tip.

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?

Yes, I'm getting some more stuff together on the strangling, but the point I was trying to make was the 'mythical Jack' had many facets, top hat cape, etc, but these are part of the myth, I have now learnt that the razor sharp knife is part of the myth as well (moderately sharp for Nichols) so what next - what else is a myth?

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Wickerman,

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 events we are looking at occurred in a sequence, so when we test the two notions under study in this thread, that of the copy cat killer and also the serial killer learning from the press, they can knowledge of prior events but not later ones.

For example the hypothetical copy-cat killer of Stride may have knowledge of the Nichols murder, but not of the Kelly murder as that was after the double event.

We have the benefit of hindsight and can look back at all the information, we have to pretend that we don't and examine the perspective of the people under study at that particular time in context of what it was possible for them to know at that point in 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

You made a claim that

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

I have showed you an contemporary article that contradicts your position, yet you're giving me advise to read up about the Buck's-row murder?

You should really try to back up your claim that Nichols wounds indicate that her killer was interrupted.

[Wickerman]

Dr Phillips - re: Chapman.
It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer.

Dr. Gordon-Brown - re: Eddowes.
It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long.

[Wickerman]

You made a claim that

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

I have showed you an contemporary article that contradicts your position, yet you're giving me advise to read up about the Buck's-row murder?

You should really try to back up your claim that Nichols wounds indicate that her killer was interrupted.

The circumstances known between the Nichols & Chapman murders did not go unnoticed by the Coroner.

In addition to these, and the case under your consideration, there is the case of Annie Chapman, still in the hands of another jury. [.........] but in the two recent cases the instruments suggested by the medical witnesses are not so different. Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries on Nicholls could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument, moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge.
Daily Telegraph, 24th Sept. 1888

[Damaso Marte]

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.

The Yorkshire Ripper came up in an argument over whether killers can change their MO - and the Yorkshire Ripper was cited merely as an example of a serial killer changing his MO from murder to murder, proof that it is at least possible.

It's only irrelevant if you believe that human nature has entirely changed in those 90 years.

[Mr Lucky]

Dr Phillips - re: Chapman.
It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer.

Dr. Gordon-Brown - re: Eddowes.
It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long.

'Sharp-pointed' refers to the shape of the blade, not the keenness of the edge, (IIRC the knife Coram found was 'round-pointed')

[Mr Lucky]

The circumstances known between the Nichols & Chapman murders did not go unnoticed by the Coroner.

In addition to these, and the case under your consideration, there is the case of Annie Chapman, still in the hands of another jury. [.........] but in the two recent cases the instruments suggested by the medical witnesses are not so different. Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries on Nicholls could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument, moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge.
Daily Telegraph, 24th Sept. 1888

Here you are comparing Nichols with Chapman, which isn't relevant at all to your earlier claim at all.

you have made the following statements;-

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

So what is it about the wounds inflicted on Nichols that makes you so sure that her killer was interrupted.

Why, for example on the 1 September 1888, when everyone else would be puzzled by the reason the killer had inflicted all those other excessive injuries beyond what was need to kill her, you by comparison would be claiming -

"actually, the excess injuries are a sign that her killer was interrupted"

What actually is it that would you cite as a reason for this viewpoint at that particular time?

[Mr Lucky]

The Yorkshire Ripper came up in an argument over whether killers can change their MO - and the Yorkshire Ripper was cited merely as an example of a serial killer changing his MO from murder to murder, proof that it is at least possible.

It's only irrelevant if you believe that human nature has entirely changed in those 90 years.

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

[Wickerman]

Here you are comparing Nichols with Chapman, which isn't relevant at all to your earlier claim at all.

But this IS the point, the similarities between the two were unmistakable and duly noted at the time. Therefore, circumstantial reasoning suggests the intent was also the same - ie, the 'circumstantial case' to which I referred.

This interpretation is not new, I don't know why you are struggling with it.
Whether it is the correct interpretation or not cannot be proven, along with everything else in this case, but the inference exists.

Here again more recently, (my emphasis)...
Quote:
Our new understanding of the medical evidence carries with it many theory-shattering ramifications. Most obvious of these is that the mutilations to Nichols' abdomen were of the same character as those later found on Eddowes and Chapman, an indication that the Ripper's objective had been the same: the procurement of organs. Also apparent is that he was by no means in a frenzy in Buck's Row, as the wounds were inflicted with clear intent, and, despite the presence of the stays acting as a frustrating obstacle to his success, he maintained his calm, not even cutting through the clothing. Short of the two jabs to the vagina, which may have been superfluous, not a single stab wound was inflicted. The killer displayed the same comfort and skill with the knife as he would later show with Chapman, forcing us to reconsider the idea that each subsequent murder was an escalation and rendering a comparison between the killings of Nichols and Martha Tabram tenuous at best. The notion that the Ripper was interrupted in his efforts by the sound of the approaching footsteps of Charles Cross becomes almost irresistible.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-old-wounds.html

Any suggestion that the killer was not the same, and that the intent was not the same, is more of a challenge to explain. And, if it was the same killer, with the same intent, then we can see the need for him to return to the streets one week later, all consistent with him previously being interrupted.

[Mr Lucky]

But this IS the point, the similarities between the two were unmistakable and duly noted at the time. Therefore, circumstantial reasoning suggests the intent was also the same - ie, the 'circumstantial case' to which I referred.

This interpretation is not new, I don't know why you are struggling with it.
Whether it is the correct interpretation or not cannot be proven, along with everything else in this case, but the inference exists.

Here again more recently, (my emphasis)...
Quote:
Our new understanding of the medical evidence carries with it many theory-shattering ramifications. Most obvious of these is that the mutilations to Nichols' abdomen were of the same character as those later found on Eddowes and Chapman, an indication that the Ripper's objective had been the same: the procurement of organs. Also apparent is that he was by no means in a frenzy in Buck's Row, as the wounds were inflicted with clear intent, and, despite the presence of the stays acting as a frustrating obstacle to his success, he maintained his calm, not even cutting through the clothing. Short of the two jabs to the vagina, which may have been superfluous, not a single stab wound was inflicted. The killer displayed the same comfort and skill with the knife as he would later show with Chapman, forcing us to reconsider the idea that each subsequent murder was an escalation and rendering a comparison between the killings of Nichols and Martha Tabram tenuous at best. The notion that the Ripper was interrupted in his efforts by the sound of the approaching footsteps of Charles Cross becomes almost irresistible.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-old-wounds.html

Any suggestion that the killer was not the same, and that the intent was not the same, is more of a challenge to explain. And, if it was the same killer, with the same intent, then we can see the need for him to return to the streets one week later, all consistent with him previously being interrupted.

Once again;-

You have made a claim;-

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

So what specifically in regarding to the wounds inflicted on Nichols suggest that her killer was interrupted.

[Damaso Marte]

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

This is a straw man argument. Nobody is making the claim that the Yorkshire Ripper influenced the Whitechapel Killer. The claim people are making is that if it's possible for one serial killer to have changed MOs between murders, its possible for a second one to do the same thing.

Why? Not because one influenced the other, but because they both share the same underlying human nature, and apparently strict identical MO between killings is not part of that underlying nature.

[The Good Michael]

All,

Imagine the police caught the murderer leaving Kelly's apartment. After questioning him, he says he killed the 5 that we all look at every day and juggle around. The police then ask why each one was different from the other and he answers: "Each one was done in different circumstance and in all cases but Kelly's I heard someone coming and couldn't do all that I wanted to. Lighting was different in each area. Movements of people around and near me were different. I tried different knives to see if I could get the job done faster each time, but that wasn't always successful. I was always drinking beforehand and sometimes I was really drunk and made a mess of things. To tell the truth. I can't remember the details very well...it was like I was in a fight and there were moments of clarity and moments of confusion."

Does this account for differences?

Mike