Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Harry D]

I personally think that reviewing modern data gleaned by interviewing identified and tried modern serial killers is irrelevant when assessing Unsolved murders in 1888 in Londons East End. Unless of course you can be sure you are looking at serial crimes. I see 2, Polly and Annie, almost identical in every relevant aspect, as being within a series, because its so obvious that they were. But folks like you and others want to accept the rest into that fold anyway, without any data but your opinions as to why each successive murder within the Canonical Group deviates from that established pattern.

Modern serial killers kill because they are compelled to do so. That's the motive. Are you telling me that you cannot conceive of any other reasons why some of these women might be killed? You have 2 broken relationships just before the murders, you have a love triangle, you have a victim who claimed she was about to rat someone out for the crimes, you have the fact that Unfortunates were paid to spy on anarchist factions throughout the East End, and you have a commission going on that is investigating the activities of Members of Parliament with respect to possible collusion with self rule activists who were in the process of plotting a political assassination during that same Fall. You have a failed assassination plot just one year earlier, and bombings and killings over the years preceding these events. And you have a senior investigator postulating in writing that Fenians might be responsible for the murders, and Balfours assassination plot?

Skill level doesn't change, you have skills or you don't. The degree in which they are demonstrated can change, but you need external demands to make that argument. You don't have data for that in Strides case, you don't have data for that in Eddowes case, and you don't have that data in Marys case. Which brings up a question.....if this man was skilled and wasn't able to show that in any murder after Annies, then why don't we see that skill in a closed room in a quiet court...with privacy, time and a victim, surely a skilled knifesman would be clearly evident there. It isn't, in fact Marys murder may have been the most crudely committed of them all.

Im sorry, an ostrich doesn't live here.

So what you appear to be saying is that a serial killer is an anachronistic concept in 1888? This begs the question, in your world, had Isenschmid struck again before he was packed off to the loony bin, wouldn't he have been defined as a serial killer?

One of Peter Sutcliffe's victims, Marguerite Walls, wasn't initially considered the work of the Yorkshire Ripper because the MO was slightly different and unlike the previous victims this one wasn't a known prostitute. Lo' and behold, it turned out that Sutcliffe, possibly to experiment or to throw police off the scent, had deviated his MO from the usual pattern. Based on your logic, had this murder gone unsolved, it would have had nothing to do with Sutcliffe as the MO and victim profile wasn't exactly like the others. We don't even have a deviation in the Ripper murders. We have a small cluster of women in the same neighbourhood dispatched in the same manner with progressive mutilations that typically occur as a serial killer grows in self-confidence and violence.

Furthermore, I do not see any evidence that there were prostitutes acting as anarchist informants in Whitechapel, least of all that any of them were the canonical victims. For someone who demands absolute proof of a serial killer, you sure do play fast and loose with the facts when it comes to your own pet theory. And you still haven't explained why they would go to the unnecessary lengths of aping the Ripper's signature when stabbing (Tabram) or throat-cutting (Stride) would be enough to include them into the Whitechapel investigation.

And as a matter of fact, someone's skill can be affected by a combination of internal factors: anxiety, anger, intoxication, mental health and external ones: timing, location, victim resistance. In the case of Mary Kelly, there wasn't a demand for skill or precision. The killer wasn't working against the clock with the threat of a copper around the corner. He wasn't snatching whatever organ was important to him and hightailing it. He was alone and undisturbed with the victim which enabled him to deface and dissect the body to his heart's content.

[spyglass]

Hi,
I would say that JTR ( who ever he was ) almost certainly murdered Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
As for Stride... maybe.
Kelly wasn't murdered, in fact I think it possible that no one was murdered.
As for profiling, at the end of the day the chances of it getting it right is no more than 50 /50.

Regards

[GUT]

Hi,
I would say that JTR ( who ever he was ) almost certainly murdered Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
As for Stride... maybe.
Kelly wasn't murdered, in fact I think it possible that no one was murdered.
As for profiling, at the end of the day the chances of it getting it right is no more than 50 /50.

Regards

So what was the guess the mess in that room?

[spyglass]

So what was the guess the mess in that room?

Well I've gone over this ( idea rather than theory ) on other recent threads, but to put it simply, the last murder was staged for other more important purposes

regards

[c.d.]

"I personally think that reviewing modern data gleaned by interviewing identified and tried modern serial killers is irrelevant when assessing Unsolved murders in 1888 in Londons East End. Unless of course you can be sure you are looking at serial crimes."

Hello Michael,

I am having trouble following your train of thought here. It seems that you are saying that we can't be sure that the London East End murders were the work of a serial killer because of what to you are significant differences in the murders. Therefore when presented with numerous instances of modern day serial killers who had significant differences in their M.O.s you say that that information can't be relevant because we can't be sure that we are dealing with a serial killer in 1888 because of differences in the M.O.s of the murders. That way of thinking seems just a tad convoluted.

Lord I got a headache just typing that. The obvious point in all that is that we know for a fact that serial killers can and do change M.O.s to a significant extent.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Jane

Hello Harry.

"Why should each murder be as identical as the last?"

Well, just look at Nichols and Chapman. In fact, they were SO similar that Dr. Phillips was sent to Birtley Fell to see if the dead lass, Beetmore, were part of the series. He replied she was not.

I suggest reading the forensic reports and closing teh statistics text. Those are MOST unhelpful.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Safety in numbers?

Hello Abby.

"and consensus, not only by police at the time but modern experts."

There was a consensus regarding the last US election. How did THAT work out?

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

I personally think that reviewing modern data gleaned by interviewing identified and tried modern serial killers is irrelevant when assessing Unsolved murders in 1888 in Londons East End. Unless of course you can be sure you are looking at serial crimes. I see 2, Polly and Annie, almost identical in every relevant aspect, as being within a series, because its so obvious that they were. But folks like you and others want to accept the rest into that fold anyway, without any data but your opinions as to why each successive murder within the Canonical Group deviates from that established pattern.

Modern serial killers kill because they are compelled to do so. That's the motive. Are you telling me that you cannot conceive of any other reasons why some of these women might be killed? You have 2 broken relationships just before the murders, you have a love triangle, you have a victim who claimed she was about to rat someone out for the crimes, you have the fact that Unfortunates were paid to spy on anarchist factions throughout the East End, and you have a commission going on that is investigating the activities of Members of Parliament with respect to possible collusion with self rule activists who were in the process of plotting a political assassination during that same Fall. You have a failed assassination plot just one year earlier, and bombings and killings over the years preceding these events. And you have a senior investigator postulating in writing that Fenians might be responsible for the murders, and Balfours assassination plot?

Skill level doesn't change, you have skills or you don't. The degree in which they are demonstrated can change, but you need external demands to make that argument. You don't have data for that in Strides case, you don't have data for that in Eddowes case, and you don't have that data in Marys case. Which brings up a question.....if this man was skilled and wasn't able to show that in any murder after Annies, then why don't we see that skill in a closed room in a quiet court...with privacy, time and a victim, surely a skilled knifesman would be clearly evident there. It isn't, in fact Marys murder may have been the most crudely committed of them all.

Im sorry, an ostrich doesn't live here.

You can be reasonably assured without being absolutely certain. Having a motive to commit murder is not the same as having a motive to commit a murder in a highly unusual way; and which ever way you look at it, murderers who eviscerate are extremely rare.

The level of skill demonstrated by the killer is ultimately unknown, i.e. because the various GPs who were involved in the enquiries differed in their opinions. In fact, I consider Dr Phillips "one sweep of the knife" conclusion to be to be highly questionable, particularly as a modern expert has suggested this would be virtually impossible. As a result, I would argue that his entire analysis, as to the skill of Chapman's killer, is seriously undermined.

As an aside, I find it interesting that since Pierre started posting a number of posters have started to include the word "data" on a number of their posts. Obviously, he's starting to have an influence on a wide range of people.

[John G]

Hello Harry.

"Why should each murder be as identical as the last?"

Well, just look at Nichols and Chapman. In fact, they were SO similar that Dr. Phillips was sent to Birtley Fell to see if the dead lass, Beetmore, were part of the series. He replied she was not.

I suggest reading the forensic reports and closing teh statistics text. Those are MOST unhelpful.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

But would you agree that in order to be able to rely on the forensic reports we have to have faith in the medical professionals who compiled them?

Then, of course, there's the matter of ambiguity. Thus, referring to Eddowes' medical reports, Dr Biggs concluded "Much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous". (Marriott, 2013).

Actually, Ian Calder, another expert engaged by Trevor Marriott, made an interesting comment concerning Eddowes' autopsy report:

"The autopsy report states that the abdomen had been opened from the bottom of the sternum as far as the pubis. It is interesting to observe that this incision appeared to be irregular, which could suggest the use of a slightly blunt knife. However the incision had avoided the unbilicus (which is more difficult to incise), and this would perhaps be supportive evidence that the assailant had knowledge of this from past experience." (Marriott, 2013).

[John G]

Further to my last post, doesn't the fact that Eddowes' perpetrator avoided the umbilicus, coupled with the level of skill demonstrated by the removal of the kidney, suggest the possibility that the perpetrator may have been as highly skilled as Chapman's killer apparently was? Could the use of a blunt knife, as suggested by Ian Calder, explain any differences in the level of skill demonstrated at the respective murder scenes?

[Michael W Richards]

Further to my last post, doesn't the fact that Eddowes' perpetrator avoided the umbilicus, coupled with the level of skill demonstrated by the removal of the kidney, suggest the possibility that the perpetrator may have been as highly skilled as Chapman's killer apparently was? Could the use of a blunt knife, as suggested by Ian Calder, explain any differences in the level of skill demonstrated at the respective murder scenes?

From Dr Brown:.."It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long".

On the skill:

"[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes."

Now compare that with the assumptions made about the skill of Annies killer based on the the fact that the police sought out info on doctors and medical students after Annies murder.

[Elamarna]

From Dr Brown:.."It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long".

On the skill:

"[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes."

Now compare that with the assumptions made about the skill of Annies killer based on the the fact that the police sought out info on doctors and medical students after Annies murder.

Michael

Here we have the issue which comes up over and over again, that of expert opinion.

Here you correctly cite what Brown said, and the view he held; however what needs to be considered is that it is the opinion of a different person here to that of the skill required in the Chapman case.

Over and over again expert views are given, which do not only not agree but can be completely at odds with each other.


A good pointer here is the difference in estimated time taken in both cases.

Phillips quoting far longer than Brown, for what are very similar procedures.

Who is right?

Is either?

We of course have no way of knowing.


The same is true about the skill levels, we should pay attention to them, but they are only individual opinions and cannot be directly compared, being from different individuals.

Even if we had the same individual, it is at the end of the day just one opinion, it is for this reason that I always prefer to look at the views of at least two experts


Steve



.

[Joshua Rogan]

Now compare that with the assumptions made about the skill of Annies killer based on the the fact that the police sought out info on doctors and medical students after Annies murder.

But the assumptions weren't based solely on the skill level Dr Phillips thought he perceived, but also because it was thought a medical man had offered money for organs.

[Michael W Richards]

But the assumptions weren't based solely on the skill level Dr Phillips thought he perceived, but also because it was thought a medical man had offered money for organs.

I don't know how much stock Phillips put into that theory, it seems more like it was Baxters idea to link the 2 based on a valid report that the previous year someone had approached a teaching facility to purchase organs.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael

Here we have the issue which comes up over and over again, that of expert opinion.

Here you correctly cite what Brown said, and the view he held; however what needs to be considered is that it is the opinion of a different person here to that of the skill required in the Chapman case.

Over and over again expert views are given, which do not only not agree but can be completely at odds with each other.


A good pointer here is the difference in estimated time taken in both cases.

Phillips quoting far longer than Brown, for what are very similar procedures.

Who is right?

Is either?

We of course have no way of knowing.


The same is true about the skill levels, we should pay attention to them, but they are only individual opinions and cannot be directly compared, being from different individuals.

Even if we had the same individual, it is at the end of the day just one opinion, it is for this reason that I always prefer to look at the views of at least two experts


Steve



.

Steve,

I believe the skill assumed could be attributed to the methodology used to obtain was can be perceived as his objectives. In Annies case, no "meaningless" cuts. The target was assumed to be the item he took cleanly and efficiently. Is that the case with Kate? That he knew where to look is evident, but a butcher would know that. Again, medical grade knowledge and skills were sought out in September, and at no other time.