Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[Michael W Richards]

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

Thanks Simon, you too.

In my opinion the first 2 murders mirror each other...woman in diminished physical state out alone soliciting, meets stranger, is attacked, has her throat slit deep enough to begin decapitation, and the has their legs spread, clothes lifted, and the abdomen mutilated. Due to the backyard venue vs almost in the street itself, its no surprise that Annie mutilations went further.

I think most every contemporary policeman could see that these were acts by the same person. Then, to maintain this madman at large, every deviance from that formula is assumed to be a result of some external influence, or differing objectives.

Why morph a profile when there is zero physical evidence to corroborate it? Well, as we know, that's Ripperology.

[Fisherman]

Look at Mary. How many cuts were designed to kill? how many to extract organs?

My guess would be that one cut was designed to kill, whereas all the rest were about exploring the anatomy. The only exception would be the defensive cuts present on her arms.

[Michael W Richards]

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?

I believe Phillips also said the wounds were dissimilar, but I don't believe we need a medical expert to tell us that Kates mutilations were unlike Annies in many ways. Including a partial uterus, rather than an intact uterus.

[Pierre]

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.

Hi,

Please ignore me if you like.

But the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was the same.

The motive was the basis for the MO. The MO was dependent of events in the life of the killer.

These events were directly connected to the motive. So you could describe it with the model:

Events (causal explanation) > motive (motive explanation) > MO (functional explanation).

Stride and Eddowes were killed because of an important event on the 1st and 2nd October.

Kelly was killed because of two important events connected to the date of the murder.

If the 1st and 2nd October had been without the event, Stride and Eddowes would not have been killed. If the date on which Kelly was killed had been another date, Kelly had not been killed.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

My guess would be that one cut was designed to kill, whereas all the rest were about exploring the anatomy. The only exception would be the defensive cuts present on her arms.

No. All the rest were not about "exploring the anatomy".

And by the way: why did he cut away flesh to make the skeleton visible?

[John G]

Hi,

Please ignore me if you like.

But the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was the same.

The motive was the basis for the MO. The MO was dependent of events in the life of the killer.

These events were directly connected to the motive. So you could describe it with the model:

Events (causal explanation) > motive (motive explanation) > MO (functional explanation).

Stride and Eddowes were killed because of an important event on the 1st and 2nd October.

Kelly was killed because of two important events connected to the date of the murder.

If the 1st and 2nd October had been without the event, Stride and Eddowes would not have been killed. If the date on which Kelly was killed had been another date, Kelly had not been killed.

Regards, Pierre

How do you know all of this?

[c.d.]

I believe Phillips also said the wounds were dissimilar, but I don't believe we need a medical expert to tell us that Kates mutilations were unlike Annies in many ways. Including a partial uterus, rather than an intact uterus.

I would be very hesitant to call any of the doctors at the time "medical experts." Certainly their testimony should be given some weight but none of them underwent a hard cross examination. We really don't have all the details of how they came to their conclusions and what factors they may or may have not taken into consideration.

c.d.

[jerryd]

I would be very hesitant to call any of the doctors at the time "medical experts." Certainly their testimony should be given some weight but none of them underwent a hard cross examination. We really don't have all the details of how they came to their conclusions and what factors they may or may have not taken into consideration.

c.d.

Here is what Dr Phillips had to say after the Alice McKenzie murder.

From the Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook:

After careful and long deliberation I cannot satisfy myself on purely anatomical & professional grounds that the Perpetrator of all the "WhChl.murders" is one man.

I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion. This noting the mode of procedure & the character of the mutilations & judging of motive in connection with the latter. I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances & other evidence are considered.

Holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion soley on Professional Grounds, based upon my own observations. For this purpose I have ignored all evidence not coming under my own observation.

[Pierre]

How do you know all of this?

Hi John,

I will try to answer you correctly.

I wrote:

But the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was the same.

Comment:

There are coherent sources for one motive. The motive is strong. It is disctinct. This motive is connected to the sources, thus giving the coherence to the motive. But they are also connected to sources in the Whitechapel murders case. So the coherence is very strong.

I wrote:

The motive was the basis for the MO. The MO was dependent of events in the life of the killer.

Comment:

The MO changes with the strengthening of the motive. This is observable through the timeline of the murders, from Nichols to Pinchin Street. The motive is connected to a threat and it is getting worse during the whole murder period.

I wrote:

These events were directly connected to the motive.

Comment: There is an event A, giving the murder of Nichols. There is an event B on the 1st and 2nd October which gives the double event. There is an event C which gives the murder of Kelly. There is an event D which gives the murder of Jackson, McKenzie and the Pinchin Street victim. The last period with event D is less distinct than the first period on a micro level. Instead it is distinct on a macro level.

So you could describe it with the model:

I wrote (quoting here):

Events (causal explanation) > motive (motive explanation) > MO (functional explanation).

Comment: Events in a causal explanation are external from the individual. The individual is affected by them. There are sources for several such events.

The motive is the response of the individual when these events occur. The motive is directed forwards in time. It has a goal. This goal is also connected to the sources from the Whitechapel murders.

The murders can therefore be described by a functional explanation. The murders have a very important function in the whole time period. They are building up a new big problem from the initial problem, thereby creating history. They are functionally connected to the motive, thus they are created by the motive and have the function to solve the initial problem.

Stride and Eddowes were killed because of an important event on the 1st and 2nd October.

The killer tried to stop that event to occur.

Kelly was killed because of two important events connected to the date of the murder.

The killer tried to stop an event to occur.

If the 1st and 2nd October had been without the event, Stride and Eddowes would not have been killed.

And Kelly would not have been killed.

If the date on which Kelly was killed had been another date, Kelly had not been killed.

That is right. The killer would not have gained what he gained by killing on that date, and he would not have decided to kill on that date if it had been another date. It was the best date. It was the perfect date.

There are sources for this. And it worries me.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Hi John,

I will try to answer you correctly.

I wrote:

But the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was the same.

Comment:

There are coherent sources for one motive. The motive is strong. It is disctinct. This motive is connected to the sources, thus giving the coherence to the motive. But they are also connected to sources in the Whitechapel murders case. So the coherence is very strong.

I wrote:

The motive was the basis for the MO. The MO was dependent of events in the life of the killer.

Comment:

The MO changes with the strengthening of the motive. This is observable through the timeline of the murders, from Nichols to Pinchin Street. The motive is connected to a threat and it is getting worse during the whole murder period.

I wrote:

These events were directly connected to the motive.

Comment: There is an event A, giving the murder of Nichols. There is an event B on the 1st and 2nd October which gives the double event. There is an event C which gives the murder of Kelly. There is an event D which gives the murder of Jackson, McKenzie and the Pinchin Street victim. The last period with event D is less distinct than the first period on a micro level. Instead it is distinct on a macro level.

So you could describe it with the model:

I wrote (quoting here):



Comment: Events in a causal explanation are external from the individual. The individual is affected by them. There are sources for several such events.

The motive is the response of the individual when these events occur. The motive is directed forwards in time. It has a goal. This goal is also connected to the sources from the Whitechapel murders.

The murders can therefore be described by a functional explanation. The murders have a very important function in the whole time period. They are building up a new big problem from the initial problem, thereby creating history. They are functionally connected to the motive, thus they are created by the motive and have the function to solve the initial problem.



The killer tried to stop that event to occur.



The killer tried to stop an event to occur.



And Kelly would not have been killed.



That is right. The killer would not have gained what he gained by killing on that date, and he would not have decided to kill on that date if it had been another date. It was the best date. It was the perfect date.

There are sources for this. And it worries me.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Thanks for the reply. However, to be honest it leaves me a little confused. For instance, what are Events A, B, C, and D that you refer to? What sources?

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

Thanks for the reply. However, to be honest it leaves me a little confused. For instance, what are Events A, B, C, and D that you refer to? What sources?

Hi John,

The events A, B, C and D are described in individual original sources in archives. They are all specific for one individual. The dates of these events are coherent with the dates of the murders.

Event A is happening one day before the murder of Tabram. I do not think that Tabram was a victim of Jack the ripper. But if I let the source kick back I ought to think she was.

Event B is happening on the 1st and 2nd October. It is the secondary trigger for the murder of Stride and Eddowes. It explains the data from these murders.

Event C is happening in connection to the murder of Kelly. It explains the data from this murder.

Event D is connected to the last three murders and explains the data from these murders. Event D starts the second murder period and leads to consequences visible in the Whitechapel murder data.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Hi John,

The events A, B, C and D are described in individual original sources in archives. They are all specific for one individual. The dates of these events are coherent with the dates of the murders.

Event A is happening one day before the murder of Tabram. I do not think that Tabram was a victim of Jack the ripper. But if I let the source kick back I ought to think she was.

Event B is happening on the 1st and 2nd October. It is the secondary trigger for the murder of Stride and Eddowes. It explains the data from these murders.

Event C is happening in connection to the murder of Kelly. It explains the data from this murder.

Event D is connected to the last three murders and explains the data from these murders. Event D starts the second murder period and leads to consequences visible in the Whitechapel murder data.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

But this is just a riddle. What are Events A, B, C, and D? How are they connected to one individual? What individual? I'm assuming that you're not referring to your suspect, who I further assume you haven't revealed get-I've not been following things for a while-because your reasoning for not revealing his name was because you didn't know that he was connected to any of the murders, i.e. because your research was incomplete.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

But this is just a riddle. What are Events A, B, C, and D? How are they connected to one individual? What individual? I'm assuming that you're not referring to your suspect, who I further assume you haven't revealed get-I've not been following things for a while-because your reasoning for not revealing his name was because you didn't know that he was connected to any of the murders, i.e. because your research was incomplete.

Hi John,

Research is getting more and more complete. It is almost complete. It is positive. Event A, B, C and D are connections.

I have a small set of sources I must look at.

I will perhaps start to write the book soon.

Best wishes, Pierre

[John G]

Hi John,

Research is getting more and more complete. It is almost complete. It is positive. Event A, B, C and D are connections.

I have a small set of sources I must look at.

I will perhaps start to write the book soon.

Best wishes, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

But you stated "But the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was the same." (Post, 234.)

However, you can't possibly know that, unless you have unequivocal proof of who the murderer is, something you claim not to have. Logically, the best you can say is, "the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly is the same if my theory turns out to be correct, which it might not ben"

[David Orsam]

Hi Pierre,

But you stated "But the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was the same." (Post, 234.)

However, you can't possibly know that, unless you have unequivocal proof of who the murderer is, something you claim not to have. Logically, the best you can say is, "the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly is the same if my theory turns out to be correct, which it might not ben"

Yes, indeed, John, what he surely meant to say (as I pointed out to him in October when he made a similar unqualified statement in the PC Long rag thread) was "I think the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was the same".

Kind of ironic considering that less than a fortnight ago when Patrick summarised his first post as "I have found him", Pierre corrected him by saying: "Patrick, you forgot the word "think"."

He then proceeded to forget the word "think" himself in virtually every statement he posted on this forum!