Conspiracy theories

[mpriestnall]

"The Law is for Protection of the People".

Some people get the Platinum Level Service.

[FISHY1118]

Conspiracy

Criminal Description

In criminal law, a Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.


I wonder how many different crimes over the centuries this definition would have be proven in a court of Law ?

[Michael W Richards]

I wouldn't call it 'blame', Michael. Ideas from a century ago are fine if they are still equally valid today, with all the additional knowledge and experience that is available to us via today's experts.

One of the goals when the killer took away any body parts was to take away body parts. He didn't find one in his pocket when he got home and say to himself: "I didn't mean to do that."

Another goal, when abdominal mutilation was observed, was abdominal mutilation. He didn't do that by accident either.

But you switched to the term 'trade mark' for the mutilations, when 'goal' would be more appropriate in all the circumstances. A goal has to be achieved, and the goals this killer had were far from easy to achieve even once [as the murder of Nichols would tend to demonstrate], let alone every time a coconut. He wasn't stamping a lion mark on eggs.

The trade mark reference I made refers to an expressed desire retroactively understood by physical evidence, ....so if he mutilates the abdomen...as part of his "goal" to obtain whatever internal abdominal organ he feels like taking on that day,... then thats a Ripper consideration in my books. To access internal abdominal organs requires that the abdomen be cut...so abdominal mutilation is in this case a required element of accessing internal organs. Its not a goal...its a step.

[caz]

You blame me for ideas that predate me by over a hundred years Caz....I didnt create the doubt, its there. In all of the records. Conflicting opinions by investigators, medical experts. Phillips saw distinct differences first hand. Blame him. Baxters folly about uteri is just that, Phillips assertion that the entire operation was to facilitate taking it isnt. The goal was to obtain what he took. Does that mean he will only take uteri? No...but he does only kill women, so its possible. If something else is taken next time does that eliminate it being the same guy again? No...but how skillfully it was done might...or how the knife was used might. Can we be sure that abdominal mutilation is a trade mark in all future kills by this killer? My opinion is without a doubt.

I wouldn't call it 'blame', Michael. Ideas from a century ago are fine if they are still equally valid today, with all the additional knowledge and experience that is available to us via today's experts.

One of the goals when the killer took away any body parts was to take away body parts. He didn't find one in his pocket when he got home and say to himself: "I didn't mean to do that."

Another goal, when abdominal mutilation was observed, was abdominal mutilation. He didn't do that by accident either.

But you switched to the term 'trade mark' for the mutilations, when 'goal' would be more appropriate in all the circumstances. A goal has to be achieved, and the goals this killer had were far from easy to achieve even once [as the murder of Nichols would tend to demonstrate], let alone every time a coconut. He wasn't stamping a lion mark on eggs.

[Michael W Richards]

I was suggesting that 'some' people at the time, 'if' they imagined that political activism lay behind one or more of the murders, 'may' have done so because they lacked the understanding and awareness we have today of what serial murder looks like. And I'll give you 'imperative', you saucy so-and-so. I'll qualify what I think needs qualifying.

The rest of your post, trotting out the same old guff you actually appear to believe, about the reason Annie Chapman was murdered, is hardly relevant to the topic of this thread, and yet I wouldn't dream of thinking it 'imperative' that you produce evidence for any of the other murders being politically motivated.

It's painfully obvious that once you settled on a killer with a view to a womb, you gave yourself no choice but to scratch around for an assortment of different killers, where that motive can't be applied or doesn't account for the whole picture.

You blame me for ideas that predate me by over a hundred years Caz....I didnt create the doubt, its there. In all of the records. Conflicting opinions by investigators, medical experts. Phillips saw distinct differences first hand. Blame him. Baxters folly about uteri is just that, Phillips assertion that the entire operation was to facilitate taking it isnt. The goal was to obtain what he took. Does that mean he will only take uteri? No...but he does only kill women, so its possible. If something else is taken next time does that eliminate it being the same guy again? No...but how skillfully it was done might...or how the knife was used might. Can we be sure that abdominal mutilation is a trade mark in all future kills by this killer? My opinion is without a doubt.

[caz]

I think its imperative that you qualify what kinds of murders "they" might not have encountered, since they had also been dealing with Torsos and they didnt link those with these crimes from a lack of understanding of them. What you said above is that they wouldnt be able to recognize serial murders, which, in these cases you believe exceeded just 2 murders by one man. I have no problem seeing a serial mutilator here, specifically a pm abdomional mutilator...very unsual. I just see 2, maybe 3, by one man, and Im well aware of stories of serial murder where the killer changes How he kills to throw off a scent, or due to in the moment issues that might arise. But I am not aware of any serial killer changing Why he kills. And Why Jack killed is so he coul mutilate the victims abdomen. In Annies case, its even more specific.

Why you would toss out good intel in favour of allowing a mixture of variables that are not a part of such a profile is only clear once you understand youve made conclusions about these and you have to have a changing killer to make it a viable idea. Well, I see very little if any real significant changes from Polly to Annie, and what amounts to huge changes from Polly to Mary. When you must have a killer changing Why he kills to support your theory, your in trouble.

I was suggesting that 'some' people at the time, 'if' they imagined that political activism lay behind one or more of the murders, 'may' have done so because they lacked the understanding and awareness we have today of what serial murder looks like. And I'll give you 'imperative', you saucy so-and-so. I'll qualify what I think needs qualifying.

The rest of your post, trotting out the same old guff you actually appear to believe, about the reason Annie Chapman was murdered, is hardly relevant to the topic of this thread, and yet I wouldn't dream of thinking it 'imperative' that you produce evidence for any of the other murders being politically motivated.

It's painfully obvious that once you settled on a killer with a view to a womb, you gave yourself no choice but to scratch around for an assortment of different killers, where that motive can't be applied or doesn't account for the whole picture.

[Michael W Richards]

In the late 19th century, it might have been excusable - just - for some to imagine that political activism played a part in one or more of these murders. Theories abounded, not only because of the lack of evidence, but because of the rarity of such crimes and the understandable ignorance about their nature, in an age before series like this began cropping up with alarming regularity, screaming and pointing to some sick saddo, acting out his violent fantasies. Granted, it took many a long decade before the term serial murder was coined and made it to common parlance, but there is little excuse for anyone in the 21st century to ignore the powerful signals coming at us across the years, that those street women were no more killed for any political reason that could be conjured up in 1888 or clung to today, than are the dead and mutilated birds and mice my cat brings in on a regular basis.

You won't believe this, but occasionally Monty brings one in alive and unhurt, and I'm able to interrupt him and effect a rescue. Another time he left one stone dead, but intact and totally unripped, for me to find in the morning on the mat, close to where he was still sleeping off the excesses of the night. I can't explain it, but that's a predator for you.

I think its imperative that you qualify what kinds of murders "they" might not have encountered, since they had also been dealing with Torsos and they didnt link those with these crimes from a lack of understanding of them. What you said above is that they wouldnt be able to recognize serial murders, which, in these cases you believe exceeded just 2 murders by one man. I have no problem seeing a serial mutilator here, specifically a pm abdomional mutilator...very unsual. I just see 2, maybe 3, by one man, and Im well aware of stories of serial murder where the killer changes How he kills to throw off a scent, or due to in the moment issues that might arise. But I am not aware of any serial killer changing Why he kills. And Why Jack killed is so he coul mutilate the victims abdomen. In Annies case, its even more specific.

Why you would toss out good intel in favour of allowing a mixture of variables that are not a part of such a profile is only clear once you understand youve made conclusions about these and you have to have a changing killer to make it a viable idea. Well, I see very little if any real significant changes from Polly to Annie, and what amounts to huge changes from Polly to Mary. When you must have a killer changing Why he kills to support your theory, your in trouble.

[Michael W Richards]

Just a lot of clashing egos, faced with the uncomfortable truth that these murders of street women were going down in history as unsolved, despite the best efforts of one or two of them to claim they had the answers.

They didn't - every man Jack was at a loss.

IMHO of course.

I think thats generous, assuming they were incompetent and egotistic rather than being clandestine. Im not so nice...as you know.

[mpriestnall]

[caz]

In the late 19th century, it might have been excusable - just - for some to imagine that political activism played a part in one or more of these murders. Theories abounded, not only because of the lack of evidence, but because of the rarity of such crimes and the understandable ignorance about their nature, in an age before series like this began cropping up with alarming regularity, screaming and pointing to some sick saddo, acting out his violent fantasies. Granted, it took many a long decade before the term serial murder was coined and made it to common parlance, but there is little excuse for anyone in the 21st century to ignore the powerful signals coming at us across the years, that those street women were no more killed for any political reason that could be conjured up in 1888 or clung to today, than are the dead and mutilated birds and mice my cat brings in on a regular basis.

You won't believe this, but occasionally Monty brings one in alive and unhurt, and I'm able to interrupt him and effect a rescue. Another time he left one stone dead, but intact and totally unripped, for me to find in the morning on the mat, close to where he was still sleeping off the excesses of the night. I can't explain it, but that's a predator for you.

[caz]

Im merely pointing out that we have a case where all the senior investigators assigned to these cases were Counter Intelligence/Espionage/National Security personelle who routinely withheld or modified information so as to keep activities or people secret. We also have these same men making claims about these cases which are far from uniform and seemingly contradictory with other investigators. Like Abberlines claim no-one knew who the killer was, and Andersons "ascertained fact". Did they both get the same reports? How is it that 3 men are mentioned in the MM but without any supporting evidence, and with at least 1 incarcerated at the time of the murders. Were these guys all reading the same reports? How could they all have such differing opinions? DO WE KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH behind any of their statements? Did they just play the news media in order to satisfy the publics desire for answers?

Lots of unanswered questions about men who made their very living being secretive and deceptive.

Just a lot of clashing egos, faced with the uncomfortable truth that these murders of street women were going down in history as unsolved, despite the best efforts of one or two of them to claim they had the answers.

They didn't - every man Jack was at a loss.

IMHO of course.

[Michael W Richards]

1 senior investigator posited that the assassination plot against Balfour....which was also ongoing at that same time....was being orchestrated by the same factions as the murders in Whitechapel. Since killing and gutting someone in the street can easily be considered as a terrorist act, not far fetched.

[Michael W Richards]

I for one, having read and re-read Fenian Fire many times...among other Irish self rule publications of the period, can easily see a situation where local murders and murderers tangentially connect the Ripper investigations to the Parnell commission activities. Would we get the whole truth from these investigators? Or might they have conspired to mislead or misinform the public in order to protect secrets they might have? Like Monro's pending dynamite information. Did he take a real threat to the people threatened, or secretly handle it and hold his breath?

[Michael W Richards]

This is all very well, Michael, but unless you are suggesting that there were people who had information which would have solved 'the murders of some murdered street women', but conspired to hold back that information to keep them unsolved, then I'm not sure why any of this is relevant to the murders themselves.

What purpose would such a conspiracy have served, except to let a brutal killer - or several of them in your view - go unidentified and unpunished?

Im merely pointing out that we have a case where all the senior investigators assigned to these cases were Counter Intelligence/Espionage/National Security personelle who routinely withheld or modified information so as to keep activities or people secret. We also have these same men making claims about these cases which are far from uniform and seemingly contradictory with other investigators. Like Abberlines claim no-one knew who the killer was, and Andersons "ascertained fact". Did they both get the same reports? How is it that 3 men are mentioned in the MM but without any supporting evidence, and with at least 1 incarcerated at the time of the murders. Were these guys all reading the same reports? How could they all have such differing opinions? DO WE KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH behind any of their statements? Did they just play the news media in order to satisfy the publics desire for answers?

Lots of unanswered questions about men who made their very living being secretive and deceptive.

[caz]

This is all very well, Michael, but unless you are suggesting that there were people who had information which would have solved 'the murders of some murdered street women', but conspired to hold back that information to keep them unsolved, then I'm not sure why any of this is relevant to the murders themselves.

What purpose would such a conspiracy have served, except to let a brutal killer - or several of them in your view - go unidentified and unpunished?