Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[Phil Carter]

Oh I thought so Phil.

No, I don't think I'll bother. Wild goose chases for things that don't exist aren't really my thing.

Suit yourself

[David Orsam]

Suit yourself

When people don't - or, in this case, can't - provide a reference to support something they have posted then that's exactly what I'll do Phil.

[harry]

To answer the question of who chose no 13 as a murder site,it seems obvious that the killer did.Why? Irrespective of the reason the killer was there,or how he got there,and we do not know the reasons,what circumstances might have compelled him to act in the way he did?For instance,was he familier with the room,the occupant,and surrounding?Did time have a significance.

[jerryd]

I know there is a reference in the news after the double event that stated Stride and Eddowes met their end by two different murderers acting in collusion. Is that what you are referring to Phil? I've posted that clip previously, but it was located in the Philadelphia Times, December 3, 1888.

[Phil Carter]

I know there is a reference in the news after the double event that stated Stride and Eddowes met their end by two different murderers acting in collusion. Is that what you are referring to Phil? I've posted that clip previously, but it was located in the Philadelphia Times, December 3, 1888.

Correct my friend. Well played.

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Evening News, 1st October 1888—

“Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner Street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr. Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority.”

Wynne Baxter, Stride summing up, 23rd October 1888—

"There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre Square - possibly the work of an imitator . . ."

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Correct my friend. Well played.

Ah right, so a little bit different from what you actually told then eh Phil?

"A few days after the Eddowes murder" - Wrong, it was 64 days after the Eddowes murder (and after the Kelly murder).

"The Times" - Wrong, you meant the Philadelphia Times.

"stated that on high authority" - Wrong, the report explains that it is no more than a theory developed by some officers based on the idea that Eddowes (referred to as 'Beddowes' in the report) must have made an appointment to meet her killer but that appointment could not have been met if the killer hadn't been interrupted when killing Stride.

"they were told that the murders were committed by different people." - Wrong, they weren't told this by anyone although the report states that the city detectives had consulted George Lewis who was understood to have come to the conclusion that the murders were committed by two men, both religious monomaniacs, acting in collusion and by pre-arrangement whose motive was terrify prostitutes in order to stop them working as prostitutes.

"The police continued to push the "single killer" theory to the public though." - Not terribly surprising really, although I'd like to know where we find the police 'pushing' such a theory to the public after 3 December 1888.

You know Phil, if we found a police report, written from memory in 1888, containing such basic errors, I dread to think what kind of convoluted conspiracy theory you would come up with to explain it.

[Phil Carter]

You know Phil, if we found a police report, written from memory in 1888, containing such basic errors, I dread to think what kind of convoluted conspiracy theory you would come up with to explain it.[/QUOTE]

The fact is I haven't got a convoluted conspiracy theory. Which disappoints people of your level. .you know..the ones who compulsively rip apart every sentence written by others. I feel sorry for you.

You couldn't wind up a toy train. Try again Sherlock. No..thats an insult to a great fictional detective. You'd have trouble detecting the time of day...unless you compulsively took the watch to pieces first.....

[Michael W Richards]

Hi All,

Evening News, 1st October 1888—

“Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner Street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr. Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority.”

Wynne Baxter, Stride summing up, 23rd October 1888—

"There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre Square - possibly the work of an imitator . . ."

Regards,

Simon

I was about to look for this Simon, thanks for saving me the trouble. All the best to you and yours over the holidays my friend.

[David Orsam]

The fact is I haven't got a convoluted conspiracy theory.

Er, what about the one in this very thread that the police continued to push a 'single killer' theory to the public despite having been told on 'high authority' that the murders were committed by different people?

[Michael W Richards]

This is incredibly simplistic thinking. Frankly, I would be more surprised if all five murders WERE identical, considering the variables involved. So, in your mind, Eddowes' face was mutilated, that rules her out. Mary Kelly was younger than the others and killed indoors, that rules her out too. Obviously, the extensive mutilations and evisceration inflicted on both victims was a front to cover up the political motives behind these two murders. Come onnnnn....

No, as you can tell by my support of Simons post, there are very good reasons for doubting whether Polly and Annies killer was also working on the Double Event night.

Your sarcasm can be restrained Harry D...nice choice of poster name by the way....Mary Kellys murder deviates from all the preceding Unsolved murders, there is anarchy in that room, not a serial abdominal mutilator. When you don't find an absence of motive,...you are just preconditioned to think a certain way in these cases... its best not to just assume no motive anyway.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

A Yuletide puzzler for you.

If, as Wynne Baxter claimed, the Mitre Square murder was possibly the work of an imitator, who was the imitator imitating, and which murder was by the Ripper?

Have a Happy Christmas and a Prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon

[Harry D]

No, as you can tell by my support of Simons post, there are very good reasons for doubting whether Polly and Annies killer was also working on the Double Event night.

Your sarcasm can be restrained Harry D...nice choice of poster name by the way....Mary Kellys murder deviates from all the preceding Unsolved murders, there is anarchy in that room, not a serial abdominal mutilator. When you don't find an absence of motive,...you are just preconditioned to think a certain way in these cases... its best not to just assume no motive anyway.

That Baxter believed Eddowes to be the work of a *possible* copycat is nothing new. That was still only his personal opinion, and he was in the overwhelming minority on that score. As I've tried to point out to you, there are several variables involved that can explain any inconsistency in skill level. What was the killer's physical and mental state at the time? Did the victim's clothing add resistance? How were the lighting conditions? You need to factor these variables into the examination of the mutilations, paired with the extraordinary nature of these crimes, before multiplying the number of stealth assassins capable of murdering and disemboweling women on the streets of Whitechapel. If someone wanted Eddowes or Kelly out of the way, they could've simply knifed them to death. Maybe the police would link them to the Ripper (like Stride and Tabram), maybe they wouldn't. Instead, you propose that they had both the nerve and the stomach to extensively mutilate the victims and remove their organs, which in Eddowes' case significantly heightened the chance of getting caught and hung as the Ripper, just to cover up the ulterior motives. And then you wonder why I treat this hypothesis as a work of fantasy?

[John G]

Hi All,

Evening News, 1st October 1888—

“Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner Street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr. Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority.”

Wynne Baxter, Stride summing up, 23rd October 1888—

"There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre Square - possibly the work of an imitator . . ."

Regards,

Simon

Yes, I'm familiar with the Evening News article. Of course, Wynne Baxter's opinion, and presumably Dr Phillips', fails to take into account the possibility that Stride's killer may have been disturbed by someone.

And, regarding the "skilful mutilations" in respect of Chapman, I consider Dr Phillips' "one sweep of a knife" assessment to be extremely dubious: see, for example, the opinion of Phillip Harrison, one of the experts consulted by Trevor Marriott. (Marriott, 2013)

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, I'm familiar with the Evening News article. Of course, Wynne Baxter's opinion, and presumably Dr Phillips', fails to take into account the possibility that Stride's killer may have been disturbed by someone.

And, regarding the "skilful mutilations" in respect of Chapman, I consider Dr Phillips' "one sweep of a knife" assessment to be extremely dubious: see, for example, the opinion of Phillip Harrison, one of the experts consulted by Trevor Marriott. (Marriott, 2013)

If you had one scintilla of evidence that Strides killer was interrupted, then you might want to consider the possibility. As it is, there is none, zero, nada, zilch. So, you have a woman that was cut once as part of an assumed serial murder group where double throat cuts and abdominal mutilations as a fixed part of his itinerary.

One sweep of the knife aside, he also stated that there were no meaningless cuts. Look at Kate. Look at Mary. How many cuts were designed to kill? how many to extract organs?

This is for Harry D as well, assuming is one thing, proving is another...and the serial killer theory is as unproven as a silenced witness theory. The only difference is almost 130 years of assumptions of serial murder that have proved fruitless.