5 & 5 Only?

[Charles Daniels]

I don't think the story begins and ends at the canonical victims.
I think there were almost certainly incidents pre-Nichols, and these need not have always been fatal outcomes.

Also, from my reading of the facts I have at my command presently, I see Alice McKenzie as an extremely likely victim. If her murder had happened exactly as it did in October of 1888, she would undoubtedly be a canonical victim.

The two forces working against McKenzie are it was exclude some popular suspects and it goes against escalation theory. But I don't see that we can't have regressions. Or we can't have the killer more pleased with a certain murder than another for their own reasons.

[Elamarna]

In other words Pierre is saying the theory that it wasn't Mary Kelly that was murdered in Millers Court is bullshit.

[John Wheat]

But the murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly. That is the discourse. And sometimes the discourse does not hide a mechanism.

The mechanism is instead in the head of the interpreter. When the interpreter does not understand the external world, he invents an explanation.

So this is what we must try to avoid.

In other words Pierre is saying the theory that it wasn't Mary Kelly that was murdered in Millers Court is bullshit.

[Pierre]

That's not the half of it.

But the murdered woman Kelly was the murdered woman Kelly. That is the discourse. And sometimes the discourse does not hide a mechanism.

The mechanism is instead in the head of the interpreter. When the interpreter does not understand the external world, he invents an explanation.

So this is what we must try to avoid.

[John Wheat]

Which theory will be revealed first the theory by spyglass or the theory by Pierre?

[spyglass]

You would be postulating that "Kelly" was not "Kelly".

That's not the half of it.

[spyglass]

Firstly the theory you're working on sounds like it will be ludicrous. Secondly I hope it isn't going to take ages for you to reveal your theory.

Hi,
Of course it will be ludicrous, but ludicrously feasible.
I've got the who, what and how, just not the why.

Regards

[The Grave Maurice]

Yeah, sorry, wrong thread. I'm out of practice.

[DJA]

Now that's what I'd call off topic

[The Grave Maurice]

To get back to your question, Madame, I've read most of the books about JTR but I can't recall one that claims all of the victims weren't prostitutes.

[Henry Flower]

Firstly the theory you're working on sounds like it will be ludicrous. Secondly I hope it isn't going to take ages for you to reveal your theory.

John I love it! A variation on the classic joke: two old ladies at a restaurant, one says, "the food here is so awful" and the other replies "I know, terrible - and such small portions!"

[John Wheat]

Hi,

I think he killed only four, although Stride is possibly not one of his.
Kelly in my mind now was not a Ripper murder but something completely different.
I'm working on a theory about this that will conclude that there never was a Kelly murder.

Keep tuned.

Regards.

Firstly the theory you're working on sounds like it will be ludicrous. Secondly I hope it isn't going to take ages for you to reveal your theory.

[Pierre]

Not quite that mundane I'm afraid.

You would be postulating that "Kelly" was not "Kelly".

[Pierre]

Hi,

I think he killed only four, although Stride is possibly not one of his.
Kelly in my mind now was not a Ripper murder but something completely different.
I'm working on a theory about this that will conclude that there never was a Kelly murder.

Keep tuned.

Regards.

Hi Spyglass,

I think that would be a mistake.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Pierre;397818]

Hi Steve,

There are differences between the MO for the victims who were found killed outdoors and those (if we hypothesize Kelly, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin St) who were not found killed indoors.

Letīs call the first group of victims VO and the second group of victims VI.

So what differences do we think we can postulate?

VO - older victims / VI - younger victims

VO - weaker victims? / VI - stronger victims?

(An hypothetical question based on age differences)

VO - quickly found / VI - found after a longer time period

VO - higher risk profile / VI - lower risk profile?

but

VO - one risk taken / VI - more than one risk taken when distributing body parts

VO - killed in the East End and the City / VI - also killed in the West End (drawing this from the distribution)

VO - less heavy work / VI - heavier work with mutilations and carrying body parts

VO - short murder and mutilation time periods / VI - longer murder and mutilation time periods

VO- murders start in August 1888 / VI - murders start in July/August 1888

VO - murders end in November 1888 / VI - murders end in September 1889

Conclusion: We can construct a set of hypotheses saying it was the same killer if we want to.

This set of hypotheses (SH) could look like this:

SH for the same killer =

1. The younger victims were stronger and harder to kill outdoors than the older victims.
2. The older victims could not be dismembered since they were killed outdoors.
3. West End was partly the place for killing the younger victims.
4. East End (and the City) was the place for killing the older victims.
5. The time period is the same - August 1888 to September 1889 - and therefore we can not use a perspective where the Whitechapel murders was the "most typical" set or murders.
6. The risk profile is high for all the cases where bodies and body parts were distributed outdoors.
7. The VO murders are external in their character: killed outside, mutilated outside, but found outside.
8. The VI murders are both internal and external: killed inside, mutilated inside, found outside.
9. The reason for the difference in external/internal elements has partly to do with age.
10. This means that the killer could not do anything he wanted to do anywhere.
11. Kelly is the most interesting case: It is totally internal. Killed inside, mutilated inside, found inside.
12. There must be a very specific motive for this particular change in MO.

Conclusion: The finding of bodies and body parts should be studied and analyzed from a risk perspective.

The questions we can ask are:

A) How is risk construced for every case?
B) What are the similarities and differences?
C) Is it possible to construct one single risk profile for all the cases here discussed?
D) What is the risk profile in the case of Kelly compared to the other cases?
E) If it is different, what are the hypothetical explanations?

Regards, Pierre

Any thoughts from you, Steve?