Once you have eliminated the impossible

[Natasha]

Partners in crime: it's possible the killer worked with someone else, but what would be the motive for 2 people to want to commit the crime? There was no money involved as far as we know. The only motive I can see has to do with the occupation of the victims.

I guess we would have to look at some sort of order that shared very strong values important to them in order to kill these women and not blink an eyelid. I can't see 2 people thinking in exactly the same way, sharing the same mindset, lack of remorse guilt etc unless they had been indoctrinated or in the very extreme they were identical twins lol. I get there were and are people who detest prostitutes, but a very large majority of the east end at the time were actually enraged by the murderers action.

I don't think BS man & Pipeman were the killers, I think they would no doubt be caught, based on drawing too much attention to themselves, for example shouting at Schwartz in a jewish neighbourhood, not very clever when you are just about to commit murder.

The red hanky: I think there was indeed a red hanky present in Kelly's room. Could the police have invented Hutch as a witness using what was found in the room to maybe to scare the killer or perhaps they wanted to pin the crime on someone? That could explain why the report was too detailed.

I like the idea that the killer was working a job that rendered him invisible. If that's the case he was someone who may have been questioned by the police a number of times.

Slightly off subject here, I was reading a news article a while ago that mentioned a George Hutchinson in the US, who had escaped a mental asylum and could possibly have been the killer, has anyone else read heard that, or is it what I suspect to be a load of balls?

[packers stem]

Good morning Wickerman
Yep,think I'm getting the hang of it

Fair enough, but him mentioning the red handkerchief once, at the passage, is evidence of what exactly?

I'm not sure why he would bother to mention it

We are in no position to say that he knew about that sighting.

True....but it's possible he read it in the press and can't be ruled out

Don't we expect the man who lived with her to know her better than the landlord?

In many ways but not necessarily facially. Some people are better at recognising than others..there was so little left to recognise.We don't know anything about the identification other than eyes and ears/hair. The eyelids were removed,the hair was bloodsoaked...
McCarthy knew her very well, he was at pains to point out that she was 'totally unrecognisable ' and his statement in the times on the tenth shows he actually had a good look round the room describing what he'd seen quite accurately. He may have been more perceptive than Barnett for all we know.Some have replied to this in the past with nonsense like 'i could recognise my partner by fingers, toes etc'. It isn't an answer because I can say I definitely couldn't positively identify any of my family by hands or feet so it's down to the individual identifier

many of these people had beer for breakfast, I never have, but that doesn't mean they never did.
However, I have had a 'dinner' style meal at 2:00 in the morning, especially after working late, I don't find that too strange.

Yes,we could all get up and cook spaghetti bolognese for breakfast.Something being possible,however,does not make it likely so we just need to apply some common sense to things as best we can. Best guess on that meal has to be between 10 and 2 surely...

[packers stem]

Partners in crime: it's possible the killer worked with someone else, but what would be the motive for 2 people to want to commit the crime? There was no money involved as far as we know. The only motive I can see has to do with the occupation of the victims.

I guess we would have to look at some sort of order that shared very strong values important to them in order to kill these women and not blink an eyelid. I can't see 2 people thinking in exactly the same way, sharing the same mindset, lack of remorse guilt etc unless they had been indoctrinated or in the very extreme they were identical twins lol. I get there were and are people who detest prostitutes, but a very large majority of the east end at the time were actually enraged by the murderers action.

I don't think BS man & Pipeman were the killers, I think they would no doubt be caught, based on drawing too much attention to themselves, for example shouting at Schwartz in a jewish neighbourhood, not very clever when you are just about to commit murder.

The red hanky: I think there was indeed a red hanky present in Kelly's room. Could the police have invented Hutch as a witness using what was found in the room to maybe to scare the killer or perhaps they wanted to pin the crime on someone? That could explain why the report was too detailed.

I like the idea that the killer was working a job that rendered him invisible. If that's the case he was someone who may have been questioned by the police a number of times.

Slightly off subject here, I was reading a news article a while ago that mentioned a George Hutchinson in the US, who had escaped a mental asylum and could possibly have been the killer, has anyone else read heard that, or is it what I suspect to be a load of balls?

Hi natasha
What you say about the hanky is making perfect sense.
More than one killer working together can work if they're brainwashed by some misguided political or religious cause

[Wickerman]

The red hanky: I think there was indeed a red hanky present in Kelly's room. Could the police have invented Hutch as a witness using what was found in the room to maybe to scare the killer or perhaps they wanted to pin the crime on someone? That could explain why the report was too detailed.

Hi Natasha.

There were instances where it looks like the police fed false stories to the press, but if that were the case here, there is no need for the police to create a legitimate statement signed by Badham, Ellisdon & Arnold, a form that is not for public consumption.
They just issue a false press release to an agency and see what comes out of the woodwork.

Slightly off subject here, I was reading a news article a while ago that mentioned a George Hutchinson in the US, who had escaped a mental asylum and could possibly have been the killer, has anyone else read heard that, or is it what I suspect to be a load of balls?

He was researched many years ago.

[Errata]

Partners in crime: it's possible the killer worked with someone else, but what would be the motive for 2 people to want to commit the crime? There was no money involved as far as we know. The only motive I can see has to do with the occupation of the victims.

I guess we would have to look at some sort of order that shared very strong values important to them in order to kill these women and not blink an eyelid. I can't see 2 people thinking in exactly the same way, sharing the same mindset, lack of remorse guilt etc unless they had been indoctrinated or in the very extreme they were identical twins lol. I get there were and are people who detest prostitutes, but a very large majority of the east end at the time were actually enraged by the murderers action.

I don't think BS man & Pipeman were the killers, I think they would no doubt be caught, based on drawing too much attention to themselves, for example shouting at Schwartz in a jewish neighbourhood, not very clever when you are just about to commit murder.

Serial killers traditionally do just fine without what we would consider to be reasonable motive. In fact, barring psychosis or confabulation, they all kill for the same reason. Because they want to. It makes them feel good. They don't need the same upbringing, though there end to be some similarities. They don't have to want the same thing. Their interests just have to be compatible. Not identical.

So let's say we have a guy who needs to take uteruses in order to avenge his sainted/hated wife (or whatever) and has medical skills. But he's uninterested in anything else. And lets say he finds himself in lockup with a guy who wants to rip the throats out of whore to get back at his nagging mother One is passionate, the other cold. One is skilled, the other strong. One is frenzied, the other clinical. One experienced, the other eager. It's a good match. And a pretty typical one. It's also a pairing that doesn't last long. Not that it blows up like a divorce, but different needs means they go their separate ways eventually. They each become solitary serial killers. Or one will. The one with anger. The clinical one may simply stop if he perceives his mission as completed.

And we know his happens. So why not here? What says that this is impossible, or even improbable? And I ask not as some snarky bit of challenge or whatever, but because I really want to know. My brain isn't coming up with it, but my brain is fried. If I knew what ruled it out, I could adjust or abandon the idea. So... help?

[Shaggyrand]

Serial killers traditionally do just fine without what we would consider to be reasonable motive. In fact, barring psychosis or confabulation, they all kill for the same reason. Because they want to. It makes them feel good. They don't need the same upbringing, though there end to be some similarities. They don't have to want the same thing. Their interests just have to be compatible. Not identical.

So let's say we have a guy who needs to take uteruses in order to avenge his sainted/hated wife (or whatever) and has medical skills. But he's uninterested in anything else. And lets say he finds himself in lockup with a guy who wants to rip the throats out of whore to get back at his nagging mother One is passionate, the other cold. One is skilled, the other strong. One is frenzied, the other clinical. One experienced, the other eager. It's a good match. And a pretty typical one. It's also a pairing that doesn't last long. Not that it blows up like a divorce, but different needs means they go their separate ways eventually. They each become solitary serial killers. Or one will. The one with anger. The clinical one may simply stop if he perceives his mission as completed.

And we know his happens. So why not here? What says that this is impossible, or even improbable? And I ask not as some snarky bit of challenge or whatever, but because I really want to know. My brain isn't coming up with it, but my brain is fried. If I knew what ruled it out, I could adjust or abandon the idea. So... help?

I have been wondering the same. There are many reasons a pair might kill together. I had considered a couple other set ups earlier but your works just as well. Motive seems to be the biggest hang up. Folks just can't get past thinking there must have been a more tangible reason for a team up. Which is understandable but we are talking about serial murder and that has different parameters in places. Motive isn't as straight foreword as it is in other situations. My thinking is it happens often enough that it can't be dismissed out of hand. Considering it could also account for some of the different conclusions coroners came to and a few other variations.
I'm not sold on the theory but I think it's worth keeping in mind without spinning it into a conspiracy. If it can be completely dismissed with facts, great.

[Natasha]

Serial killers traditionally do just fine without what we would consider to be reasonable motive. In fact, barring psychosis or confabulation, they all kill for the same reason. Because they want to. It makes them feel good. They don't need the same upbringing, though there end to be some similarities. They don't have to want the same thing. Their interests just have to be compatible. Not identical.

So let's say we have a guy who needs to take uteruses in order to avenge his sainted/hated wife (or whatever) and has medical skills. But he's uninterested in anything else. And lets say he finds himself in lockup with a guy who wants to rip the throats out of whore to get back at his nagging mother One is passionate, the other cold. One is skilled, the other strong. One is frenzied, the other clinical. One experienced, the other eager. It's a good match. And a pretty typical one. It's also a pairing that doesn't last long. Not that it blows up like a divorce, but different needs means they go their separate ways eventually. They each become solitary serial killers. Or one will. The one with anger. The clinical one may simply stop if he perceives his mission as completed.

And we know his happens. So why not here? What says that this is impossible, or even improbable? And I ask not as some snarky bit of challenge or whatever, but because I really want to know. My brain isn't coming up with it, but my brain is fried. If I knew what ruled it out, I could adjust or abandon the idea. So... help?

Hi Errata,

It's a fair question.

There are cases where 2 oddballs have met and turned in to serial killers, and even rarer I have heard of a case in the 80s I think (can't remember the details specifically) where 2 psychopaths killed together.

When I look at the murders I see a kinda personal vendetta against these women, there is something more intimate about the way the victims were killed (particularly Kelly), not something that was shared with anyone else. That seems in contrast to how the bodies were positioned as if on display after the murders I realise. I can't put my finger exactly on what it is, this sounds a bit mad but bear with me, it's like when an artist refuses to show anyone their artwork before it's finished.
That's just my thoughts on it.

I have to admit that in the past I said that the ripper may have had a female accomplice, but I wouldn't have thought that the accomplice actively took part in the murders/mutilation, rather that they were used as a way to gain confidence.

I dunno really, I'm just going on how I see it TBH

[Pcdunn]

Lynn: Hello, and thank you for the explanation.

GUT: This is neither here nor there, but I've heard that the meal chicken and waffles came to be due to musicians and others who worked late shifts wanting a combination "dinner" and "breakfast" meal. So yes, it could have been...

[Pcdunn]

Morning Pat
I've not read the book but the threads do look interesting, especially the use of the name Johnto and thankfully after 30 years of kosminsky/Cohen /local mad butcher style nonsense more people are starting to accept surgical background to the killer.I'll have to get the book..
..and Simon's book I'm dying to get my hands on but looks like I may have to buy a kindle for that.
The RIC were the Royal Irish Constabulary. 2 officers visited Millers Court along with a high ranking post office official and a member of parliament....

Hello, Packers, thank you for the information. I didn't know about that piece of history!

You can read Kindle e-books if you have a smartphone or tablet with Android technology, just get an app. I think it is also possible to open a Kindle account at Amazon without owning a Kindle e-reader. After mine quit working, I switched my preference to read from "on my device" to "the Cloud" and it works fine, if you know your password.

[curious4]

Fish supper/breakfast

If Mary had fish and potatoes for breakfast, where did she buy them? And wouldn't she have been seen?

Best wishes
C4

[GUT]

Lynn: Hello, and thank you for the explanation.

GUT: This is neither here nor there, but I've heard that the meal chicken and waffles came to be due to musicians and others who worked late shifts wanting a combination "dinner" and "breakfast" meal. So yes, it could have been...

I believe that was the origin.

People who work odd hours eat odd meals, that simple really.

I would add that if someone with as little as MJK had, came into 6p a good feed would be at the top of he list, regardless of the time of day. And as I said before if she was full of booze a bit of fat would be the go.

[packers stem]

If Mary had fish and potatoes for breakfast, where did she buy them? And wouldn't she have been seen?

Best wishes
C4

she didn't presumably
Fish and chips is a traditional evening meal...chippys dont open in the mornings,unless someone produces evidence to the contrary maybe we should stick with common sense

[packers stem]

Hello, Packers, thank you for the information. I didn't know about that piece of history!

You can read Kindle e-books if you have a smartphone or tablet with Android technology, just get an app. I think it is also possible to open a Kindle account at Amazon without owning a Kindle e-reader. After mine quit working, I switched my preference to read from "on my device" to "the Cloud" and it works fine, if you know your password.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5001

Hi Pat
Thanks for the info,i'll download the app and get simon's book on board.
Above is the link to the RIC thread from a few years back.Seems i'd forgotten there was more than one member of parliament present

[curious4]

Not likely she would have wanted to eat before the Lord Mayor's show with a sit-down meal for the poorest of the area. Which makes me wonder why she wasn't found until later, the Lord Mayor's Show starting at ten. There is an account which has a neighbour finding her. She would probably have planned to go with friends.

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

Not likely she would have wanted to eat before the Lord Mayor's show with a sit-down meal for the poorest of the area. Which makes me wonder why she wasn't found until later, the Lord Mayor's Show starting at ten. There is an account which has a neighbour finding her. She would probably have planned to go with friends.

Best wishes
C4

Yep,it seems clear she had a fish and chip supper which from the 1860's in the north west mill regions(Manchester and surrounding areas) and London was the staple diet of people who were short of cooking facilities..