Facial Mutilations

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

My answer to that would be that there are within the Canonical Group 2 sequential victims that do have a continuing theme and physical evidence that they were killed in very similar fashion, and therefore it is quite possible even probable, that those 2 murders... at least... were committed by the same person or persons who did in fact have some obsession with specific locations on a womans body...and specific organs inside the body.

There is no other evidence within that Canonical group that strongly suggests a probable link by killer from one victim to the next.

Unless of course you feel a crazy guy was running about killing women in a variety of ways and performing unique acts each subsequent murder. For myself the "BOOGYMAN" conclusion is reliant more on emotional response than it is on any evidence.

Cheers

MWR Why do you feel the need to belittling? the use of the word "boogyman" makes me think you view my thinking of it being one killer is child like? yet much of what we know of the killings would surggest that to be so, but we know not for sure so that makes things open to interperatation hence your theorem has some point, but it is a theorem none the less is it not? So neather idear has clarity each of are thinking is no less worthy than the others.

[Harry D]

Please give an example were a serial killer has performed unique acts, which are consistent throughout a series. Serial killer signatures evolve or become more elaborate, for example, one killer progressed from genital mutilations to dismemberment. There is therefore nothing unusual in a series of crimes which involves certain dissimilarities, i.e. such as between Chapman and Kelley.

Quite right, John. It's naive to believe that a serial killer is going to murder in the same fashion each and every time. Peter Sutcliffe sometimes stabbed his victims to death with a knife, some he strangled with a rope, and some he used only a hammer. I'd daresay if he hadn't been caught someone like Michael would be on here arguing that the Yorkshire Ripper is another 'bogeyman' and these prostitutes were killed by no less than five different men. The Ripper murders are more consistent than those carried out by other infamous serial killers. All of them involved a deep slashing of the throat followed in most cases by abdominal mutilations. Mary Kelly is the one that stands out, owing to the extremity of her injuries, which were facilitated by her murder taking place indoors where the killer had the time and privacy to indulge himself.

Facial mutilations, for example, are not evidence of a different killer. We have no idea what was going through the murderer's mind when he was butchering these women. I, personally, believe the facial mutilations were motivated by the attractiveness of the victim. However, it could've been because those women reminded him of someone, or it was the simple result of direct escalation.

I think Michael is part of that small cadre who are on a mission to destroy the "sacred cows" of Ripperology. Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, more power to them, but everything we've learned about the murders and serial killers in general all points to a lone killer.

[Harry D]

My answer to that would be that there are within the Canonical Group 2 sequential victims that do have a continuing theme and physical evidence that they were killed in very similar fashion, and therefore it is quite possible even probable, that those 2 murders... at least... were committed by the same person or persons who did in fact have some obsession with specific locations on a womans body...and specific organs inside the body.

There is no other evidence within that Canonical group that strongly suggests a probable link by killer from one victim to the next.

Unless of course you feel a crazy guy was running about killing women in a variety of ways and performing unique acts each subsequent murder. For myself the "BOOGYMAN" conclusion is reliant more on emotional response than it is on any evidence.

Cheers

Hello, Michael.

Let's assume arguendo that you're right. Polly & Annie were killed by a different murderer than the rest of the C5. What becomes of this violent psychopath whose attacking prostitutes? He's suddenly out of the picture and another sick puppy (or puppies) happen to move onto his turf. Like the first guy, they cleanly dispatch their victims and slice their throats left-to-right, mutilate the bodies and remarkably all of them manage to evade capture. This all happens in the short space of three months within a localized hot zone. Now we have at least two or more knife-wielding killers terrorizing the streets of Whitechapel who are all unaccounted for until the murders quickly die out, with a couple of intermittent victims in the intervening years before the case is officially closed.

Now, of course, you can argue that there were other violent murders in Whitechapel leading up to and after the 'Ripper' murders. However, you know as well as I do that a lot of those murders are generally ruled out as Ripper victims due to various factors from the modus operandi and signature injuries to the timings. Very few of those murders bore the same trademarks as the C5, i.e. throat slicing, abdominal mutilations, evisceration and organ removal.

All things considered, I'll stick with my 'bogeyman' thanks.

[John G]

My answer to that would be that there are within the Canonical Group 2 sequential victims that do have a continuing theme and physical evidence that they were killed in very similar fashion, and therefore it is quite possible even probable, that those 2 murders... at least... were committed by the same person or persons who did in fact have some obsession with specific locations on a womans body...and specific organs inside the body.

There is no other evidence within that Canonical group that strongly suggests a probable link by killer from one victim to the next.

Unless of course you feel a crazy guy was running about killing women in a variety of ways and performing unique acts each subsequent murder. For myself the "BOOGYMAN" conclusion is reliant more on emotional response than it is on any evidence.

Cheers

Please give an example were a serial killer has performed unique acts, which are consistent throughout a series. Serial killer signatures evolve or become more elaborate, for example, one killer progressed from genital mutilations to dismemberment. There is therefore nothing unusual in a series of crimes which involves certain dissimilarities, i.e. such as between Chapman and Kelley.

[Michael W Richards]

Did he maybe cut the areas that apealed did he mutilate areas of attraction or parts of that woman's body that aroused him?

My answer to that would be that there are within the Canonical Group 2 sequential victims that do have a continuing theme and physical evidence that they were killed in very similar fashion, and therefore it is quite possible even probable, that those 2 murders... at least... were committed by the same person or persons who did in fact have some obsession with specific locations on a womans body...and specific organs inside the body.

There is no other evidence within that Canonical group that strongly suggests a probable link by killer from one victim to the next.

Unless of course you feel a crazy guy was running about killing women in a variety of ways and performing unique acts each subsequent murder. For myself the "BOOGYMAN" conclusion is reliant more on emotional response than it is on any evidence.

Cheers

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

Aroused by an ear or eyelids?

Now there's an idea.

Lol ho man I was thinking of the whole face but mr j was a strange one so you never know!.............

[GUT]

Did he maybe cut the areas that apealed did he mutilate areas of attraction or parts of that woman's body that aroused him?

Aroused by an ear or eyelids?

Now there's an idea.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

Did he maybe cut the areas that apealed did he mutilate areas of attraction or parts of that woman's body that aroused him?

[John G]

Hi John,

Your first sentence is at the heart of the issue....we do not know why these women were killed. Therefore, a position that is based upon a serial killer is presumptuous, because mental illness would be the underlying motivation for all these murders. Not for money, not in the heat of the moment, not to avenge or to punish, not because they knew things that were dangerous to others...."not" for an infinite list of possibilities, but rather a single serial killer that we need only identify to solve the crimes? Are you telling me that this is the only logical position, and that the discrepancies with skill, knowledge, MO and activities performed among the Five is explained by that premise?

Now, If you had a serial string with Polly, Annie, Kate and Alice... I would have to say I couldn't find much fault with that as a preliminary stance. They are similar in many key respects and because of that, group able,... but the continuing myth about these Five Canonical victims being the ones most probably done by the same person... based on their similarities.....needs to be abandoned to get any further in this area of study. It leaves far too many things unanswered and flies in the face of some compelling evidence that we can still review today.

In Whitechapel in the late 1880's "Monsters" of one kind or another lurked around corners throughout the dark hours, one it would appear decided to satisfy an urge, compulsion or obsession.. and on the dirty streets themselves, gutted female human beings. And other women were killed dramatically too by other people. It was a very violent ghetto...lest we forget.

Lets not confuse the 2.

Cheers John

Hello Michael,

Keppel et al took the view that the C5 and Tabram are linked by signature characteristics. However, I don't think we can draw any firm conclusions as to the level of skill involved in any of the murders, especially as we are reliant on somewhat vague, and incomplete, medical reports from a group of Victorian GPs. In fact, even Trevor Marriott's modern experts can't seem to agree. However, I do agree that something very odd seemed to be happening during this period: Mylett, Coles, Smith and McKenzie were also very rare murders, as was Haynes, for that matter. The Torso murderer was also active during the same period, however, his signature was very different.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

We do not know what the killer's motivation was because he was never caught. There is not a single example, in recorded history, of two serial killers operating at the same time in such a small geographical area.

Murders involving mutilation are incredibly rare. That fact alone provides, in my opinion, to link NIcholls, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

Hi John,

Your first sentence is at the heart of the issue....we do not know why these women were killed. Therefore, a position that is based upon a serial killer is presumptuous, because mental illness would be the underlying motivation for all these murders. Not for money, not in the heat of the moment, not to avenge or to punish, not because they knew things that were dangerous to others...."not" for an infinite list of possibilities, but rather a single serial killer that we need only identify to solve the crimes? Are you telling me that this is the only logical position, and that the discrepancies with skill, knowledge, MO and activities performed among the Five is explained by that premise?

Now, If you had a serial string with Polly, Annie, Kate and Alice... I would have to say I couldn't find much fault with that as a preliminary stance. They are similar in many key respects and because of that, group able,... but the continuing myth about these Five Canonical victims being the ones most probably done by the same person... based on their similarities.....needs to be abandoned to get any further in this area of study. It leaves far too many things unanswered and flies in the face of some compelling evidence that we can still review today.

In Whitechapel in the late 1880's "Monsters" of one kind or another lurked around corners throughout the dark hours, one it would appear decided to satisfy an urge, compulsion or obsession.. and on the dirty streets themselves, gutted female human beings. And other women were killed dramatically too by other people. It was a very violent ghetto...lest we forget.

Lets not confuse the 2.

Cheers John

[John G]

Hello Michael,

We do not know what the killer's motivation was because he was never caught. There is not a single example, in recorded history, of two serial killers operating at the same time in such a small geographical area.

Murders involving mutilation are incredibly rare. That fact alone provides, in my opinion, to link NIcholls, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Harry,

To respond;

This does kind of prove Batman's point. The initial murders did not include any kind of facial mutilations. Therefore, if the murders of Eddowes & Kelly were copycat killers trying to disguise their crimes as Ripper murders, why would they break with precedent? You're implying it's because these victims had some previous relationship with their killers, but that still doesn't rule out a serial killer. Maybe the Ripper knew Eddowes & Kelly, or they reminded him of his mother or an ex-lover? Why the need to invent multiple killers when there was already one knife-wielding prostitute slayer at large?

I don't believe I was implying anything Harry, I just merely pointed out that in the vast majority of violent crimes involving facial mutilation there is a pre-existing connection between the victim and the perpetrator. Why would I ignore that fact when interpreting these kinds of wounds? I also said that the copycat murders, (which isn't an accurate term for what Im describing...more like setting a murder scene to implicate someone else..in this case, someone unknown)....do not seem to have the focus and repeated methodology that we see with Polly and then again with Annie within 10 days. The examination of Annie led the physician to conclude that everything that was done to her by knife was to facilitate the organ removals. Can you say that with Kate or Mary? Or Liz for that matter?

That's a kind of contradiction in terms, because it's only by studying the post-mortems that one can infer any kind of motive in the first place. Moreover, you make it sound like the Ripper murders were fairly commonplace, as if anyone could go out into the street and start butchering women and removing their viscera.

Many, many, murders are solved without having the specific nature of the physical wounds being the catalyst for the revelation. The Motive, the reason for the murders of Kate and Mary will not be found by examining those wounds, and assumptions that proclaim the assumed killer of the five Canonicals was the only man committing violent crime in a severely depressed and overcrowded neighborhood,... rife with anarchists, Irish self rule terrorists and predjudice, is ...well, its in its most polite terms, very naïve and detrimental to any legitimate attempt to solve these crimes. When we know that a number of women that exceeds the Five in the alledged Ripper series were also killed during that period, many with similar wounds, you either have to blame all of them on one person or grudgingly accept that there MUST HAVE been more than one killer, in cases, based only on the actual physical evidence. You know when an ostrich buries its head in the sand it believes its "hiding" from predators? Despite the obvious fact that the vast majority of it is still exposed to the threat. If it realized that simple fact it could choose other ways, more logical and effective ways to evade danger. Assuming that a solo serial killer explains all these murders is just like an ostrich burying its head.

If a criminal intentionally or accidentally killed someone in London during that Fall, there would be lots of information on how to recreate a Ripper killing in the local newspapers, by virtue of the microscopic review of the physical evidence. Assume that virtually anyone can be a potential mutilator if given the proper rationale for doing so...check the papers from around the globe daily and youre likely to find cases of murderers dismembering and defacing the victims in order to evade suspicion or capture. You will also find, on occasion, people killing just because they have psychological problems. Both sets of victims could look extremely similar in terms of the damage inflicted, (however in the case of the Canonical Five there is clear differentiation in that physical evidence alone), but the Reasons, the Motives, the driving, compelling WHY that damage was done in the first place may be entirely different.

It appears that Someone killed Polly and Annie so that they could cut their abdomens open and remove organs to take with them. The venue in Bucks Row was too public, and that's why we see a change and a successful venture when the killer moved off the street the next time.

Tell me with a straight face that the evidence in the case of Liz Stride, Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly reveal the same "Reason" within the physical evidence alone.... . Obviously an unsustainable perspective at this juncture.

Realize that...fact... there were other murderers working in that area, (there are lots of murders in the Unsolved File besides the Canonical Group)...and that anyone can cut people up or open. Why they do so is the only question that matters....not what they do.

Cheers

[Trevor Marriott]

I could have told you that.

Ranks with what Sequeira said.

Just a bit OT,however,if Jack the Ripper had premises at 6 Mitre Street,a lot of the timing is solved.

A strangled Eddowes is dragged out the fence gate between police beats.

Hi Debs
The statement made by Sequeria is ambiguous and lacks clarity.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

But didn't your own expert, the forensic pathologist Dr Biggs, cautiously conclude that Eddowes' killer would have had enough time to commit the murder and the mutations?

John

Time is immaterial if the killer did not inflict all of them.

With regards to the new pathologist he actually goes against what my original pathologist stated, and that was the killer would not have had time to do what he is alleged to have done.

I don't recall asking the pathologist to specifically comment on the facial mutilations in any event

Just goes to show that even experts will disagree

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Hello Trevor,

But didn't your own expert, the forensic pathologist Dr Biggs, cautiously conclude that Eddowes' killer would have had enough time to commit the murder and the mutations?

I could have told you that.

Ranks with what Sequeira said.

Just a bit OT,however,if Jack the Ripper had premises at 6 Mitre Street,a lot of the timing is solved.

A strangled Eddowes is dragged out the fence gate between police beats.