Organised or Disorganised?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Well let me jump in here and state an obvious point that seems to be overlooked. I am not aware of anyone on these boards (myself included) who has stated that the C5 are written in stone and cannot be questioned in any way. Nor are those who support the C5 able to offer absolutely conclusive evidence that it was Jack's hand who did them all.

Nor can those who disagree with the C5 offer absolutely incontrovertible proof or evidence that their position is correct.

Does anybody disagree with this?

c.d.

Well, I am not sure of that the C5 is written in stone TODAY, but it sure was for a very long time, and theb reason for this is the books and researchers that were dominating at the time, regardless if we're speaking of the 70s (Stephen Knight et al) or the 80s (Fido, Begg and others). But of course, also contemporary documents like the Macnaghten memoranda and Thomas Bond's profile has had a big role to play in this.

So yes - the C5 has been pretty much written in stone, but it is basely a result of the prominent reserchers of their time and how the Ripper murders were portrayed in the media (documentaries and films) rather than any real evidence. However, the C5 concept seems to be questioned more frequently today and I think it's because the Ripper case is less coloured today by certain professional opinions from a small number of authorities as it was earlier. The climate today seems to be filled with more diverse opinions and thoughts and a new look at the evidence.

Aoll the best

[perrymason]

Nice to see you Glenn, and I appreciate your thoughts, thank you.

Ill depart and let the conversation resume on the O/D-O discussions.

Cheers Glenn, all.

[Sam Flynn]

Good post, Mike - although I won't be quite as effusive in my praise as Glenn, for the following reasons:

If I can be so bold as to suggest that you, Ben, and Sam believe that there was a serial killer who craved mutilations running around the East End in the Fall of 88.

Well, there's every indication that there was, although I wouldn't go so far as to say he "craved" mutilations.

Ben has doubts about Liz, but you and Sam less so, and essentially none of you would have a problem with tentatively accepting the Canonical group.

I don't accept the "canon" at all.

You feel his motivations were based in his mind.

I know they were. That's where motivations "live".

We are investigating different events based on the perception differences...thats why I disagree so much with what is in my opinion, unfounded "truths".

Speaking only for myself, I believe it's essential to consider only the bare facts of this case, and examine them dispassionately from as many angles as I can, before I form an opinion. Any "truths" that I use in my arguments are about as spartan and undecorated as truths can get. For "unfounded truths" I have no time whatsoever.

The truth is that Jack may have killed a few and others may have killed the others, or that Jack killed dozens and none were "feature matched" beyond the C5, or that Jack wanted to own organs from the female abdomen, ......

No. The only truths we have resides in the (sadly incomplete) evidence from each case, and via independent historical and scientific sources, sometimes not even remotely related to the murders. We don't know - and will NEVER know - diddly-squat about Jack's motives, discussion of which can only be highly speculative at best, and useless at worst. Certainly, speculation about Jack's motives and desires should never be varnished as "facts" and used in any sensible debate.

the point of course is that there is in my opinion no evidence that exists that can support some of the assumptives being used

The evidence exists irrespective of who reads it - the same evidence that "supports" my arguments as support yours - and the difference lies in the interpretation. Because we're stuck with the same evidence, and because that evidence is generally so full of gaps, any interpretation of it had better stick rigidly to the facts. Any analysis of those facts should be conducted soberly, and should consider all angles within reason. We should not allow any particular "end-game" to distort our interpretation of them.

Some of you might believe that we "know" more than that, or that your guess is better than others, but we dont "know"....and therefore the premise of your guess is only better if you happened to guess better.

Who's guessing? Not me. I prefer to deduce.

Before you tell someone why they are wrong, consider that they may not be seeing these events or evidence as you are, and that you cant prove they are wrong anyway.

It's not about proving anyone "wrong", as far as I'm concerned. It's about ensuring that the facts of the case are subject to legitimate analysis, without prejudice or distortion, and that any claims made in respect of them stand up to scrutiny. If they don't - and the claims I might make are fair game too - then we can learn from the experience, and collectively become better analysts, making more joined-up contributions to the discussion.

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

I was painting with a broad bristled brush at times, so dont feel that each remark was about my perceptions of your perceptions ....although I stand corrected on The Canon issue.

I think based on your comments you agree in principle with much that I posted in terms of interpretive differences, and the lack of real evidence that can add weight to one side or the other.

One point though, on the notion of where the motivations may stem from, I agree fully that we cannot know them at this time, but I do not exclude a motive that is more visceral and tangible physically for one or two victims of the Canonical Group. It is possible at this time to place an approximate street value on a particular organ that was taken twice, based on a story of an American Doctor that was refuted by only one of the two sources referred to. That value is very subtantial, as weve discussed, to an East End resident definitely so, so if there was some real basis for the story and the purchase value was accurately reported, you potentially have a physical and emotional motive, including extreme poverty and sheer desperation.

Im not suggesting Burke and Hare, they stole bodies and sold parts, this is different regardless of the motives, but Im not sure that there are not potential legitimate tangible motivations rather than those of some psychosis.

An example, what if the nose cutting of Kate was the final touch in a warning to others...the main message being her gruesome death? Not saying thats my take at all, but I dont see reasons for ruling that out completely either. What if Liz was robbed of her 6d?

Best regards Sam

[Sam Flynn]

One point though, on the notion of where the motivations may stem from, I agree fully that we cannot know them at this time, but I do not exclude a motive that is more visceral and tangible physically for one or two victims of the Canonical Group.

I think you're confusing "actions" with "motives", Mike. All motivations spring from the mind - it's a simple fact of biology. Because we shall never know Jack's mind (as we agree), his motives cannot be definitively discovered by reverse-engineering his actions. They may be speculated upon, but even there we must stick to the facts and allow our analysis of them not to be distorted in turn by our motives.

An example, what if Liz was robbed of her 6d?

We'd be speculating - and, to be honest, where would it get us? That's why all this babble about "organised/disorganised" is in my view utterly useless, except as an arbitrary exercise in labelling; and the fact that one does so using distinctly subjective labels/criteria makes it an even more pointless exercise.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I agree with you, Sam, that the terms organized/disorganized is quite a lot of psycho babble aqnd indeed very subjective.
Although some serial killers seem to possess disorganized traits, most of them also possess organzied ones in addition. In other words, most of the disorganzied serial kilelrs that do exist also have organized traits and thus falls into the 'mixed' category, which in itself makes both terms useless.
the only serial killer that I know of that can actually be called truly disorganzied is probably Richard Trenton Chase (since he was a real paranoid schizofrenic case with true disorganized behaviour), but he must be considered one in a million.

All the best

[Jeff Leahy]

Bloody Vikings

Blimmey a Viking counter attack when least expected and the Welsh role up and retreat…oh lessons of history?

Look guys, this is all modern trendy, ripperologist, psycho babble….

But the facts remain that dismissing victims from Jacks tally is very much a modern view point/perspective. Those in charge of the case, i.e. those with all the evidence to their disposal believed that Kelly was a JtR victim. Indeed as the McNaughten Five, is simply a ‘creation’ of his imagination, the reality is that most worked on the theory that Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were also victims.

And as Swanson was clearly nobodies fool and an excellent police officer why not except that he probably new more about the case than the rest of you put together? He clearly believed these murders committed by one person (answers on a post card).

Given their opinion and current Viking consideration, I know whom I would be backing?

Happy New Year all…

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=g8huXkSaL7o

Bloody Vikings

PS did anyone notice that Michael Pallins "Historian' Looks Welsh?

[perrymason]

Hi Pirate,

I believe that the contemporary investigators of these crimes had reasons for associating the women with their throats cut, I wont add with "mutilations" because one had none....with an adversarial attitude towards the police prior to the crimes, and the horrible nature of the crimes, ...would you prefer to announce "we believe these cases are the work of one man",...or, "there are at least 5 women that were murdered recently and there are no clues as to who did these murders or why".

A serial killer who is evidently difficult to profile and certainly mad and unpredicatable to me is a much better public relations position for them at that time.

There are cases, such as the Squibby story, that illustrate that the mob mentality was beginning to permeate the streets, and if that meant defying or challenging the police to get at a suspect, so be it.

The police were chasing a killer or killers while ensuring that part of town didnt explode.

Cheers Pirate.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Pirate,

I believe that the contemporary investigators of these crimes had reasons for associating the women with their throats cut, I wont add with "mutilations" because one had none....with an adversarial attitude towards the police prior to the crimes, and the horrible nature of the crimes, ...would you prefer to announce "we believe these cases are the work of one man",...or, "there are at least 5 women that were murdered recently and there are no clues as to who did these murders or why".

A serial killer who is evidently difficult to profile and certainly mad and unpredicatable to me is a much better public relations position for them at that time.

There are cases, such as the Squibby story, that illustrate that the mob mentality was beginning to permeate the streets, and if that meant defying or challenging the police to get at a suspect, so be it.

The police were chasing a killer or killers while ensuring that part of town didnt explode.

Cheers Pirate.

Hi michael

like it or not the fact remains that serial killers are very rare...

They were even more uncommon in 1888...

If you choose to believe that a number of serial killers were wandering around slashing people to death the night Liz Stride died thats up to you.

My piont is simply that the police, who new those streets, lived and worked on them, didnt believe so......

and to be honest given the time I've spent on those same streets...I dont beleive so...and yes, I have experienced agro....

But I've only seen one throat cut..

And I think that everything that I've researched on the case pionts to a single serial killer..

'An accertained fact'

Pirate

[perrymason]

Hi Pirate,

I do know this much....3 women had their throats cut by men the night of Jacks Double Event, and on Oct 3rd a Torso was found. Somebody killed Martha Tabram. And there are a few unsolved cases over a 14-15 month period that are in addition to the 5 "linked" ones. My conclusion is that there were other killers of unfortunates using knives about at the same place and time. Granted what was done with that knife in some cases is not common as I suggest violence against street whores was, but nevertheless, any killer can evolve.

The murders in the spring caused some alarm, as the motive seems murky but the actions cruel and dangerous....when Martha Tabram is killed, it is thought to be the most horrible crime in recent history, and it brings up the women murdered in the spring...he is now the Whitechapel Murderer. At the end of August a new level of threat is detected, and speculation regarding some "skill" potentially evident is a new twist, then with Annie he becomes Leather Apron, not solely because of that physical evidence, but because their concept was now that this may be a man known by the whores, known to threaten, and having some skills with a knife. Its suggested he targeted and removed specific organs...by credible sources.

After the Double Event, with two very different style murders but still thought by police to be by the same man, we now have a man that might just kill without further insults, and one that seems to be focusing on womens abdominal region and privates, and has now taken organs 2 consecutive times, (by kill nights not order of victims), one particular organ was taken both times. A man with some skills with a knife, and some rudimentary anatomical knowledge. This is the beginning of mad serial Jack in my opinion, it is the time the name becomes public, and it may not have been the investigatorial profile that fit the multiple killer best. Maybe Leather Apron-ish did....or The Whitechapel Murderer was.

The evolution of the killer stopped when the repetitive and the differing elements being seen each successive kill re-enforced a concept of a crazed man capable of a broad range of savage acts, anywhere.

I think that the actual multiple killer may be one of the profiles that they had earlier ideas about.

I dont deny that there are strong indicators with some of these murders that one man, or the same 2 men, killed multiply. I do see a rationale for suggesting that within the 5 murders some do have a "Leather Apron" profile type signature.

All the best.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Jeff (Pirate),

It is also an 'ascertained fact' that several killers and maybe even serial killers most likely WERE roaming the East End before, during and after the Ripper. Unle4ss you believe that the number of torso murders from 1874 and onwards also were perpetrated by the Ripper (and I doubt that many police officials actually believed thopse were the work of the Ripper). And of course we have Klosowski and Neil Cream just a couple of years after the Ripper.

So the argument that serial killers 'are rare' might be valid in many cases but not necessarily here.

All the best

[perrymason]

Hi again,

I have a thought regarding the means to give people who do want to discuss Organized and Dis-Organized behaviours seen in the Ripper cases....while accepting that the data is too inconclusive to evaluate this using the Canonical Group as a whole.

Why not discuss each murder separately on that basis, in the particular victims folders? There still will be both characteristics present I believe, as has been said, even documented known serial killers can exhibit both...but at least it allows you to have some well defined parameters to work within.

Just a thought, cheers.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

More organised than not I'd say, but there's not a great deal of planning in his methods at all. He obviously set out to kill as he brought a knife out with him and (presumably) appropriate clothing to conceal stolen organs. But that's where his tactics end.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff (Pirate),

It is also an 'ascertained fact' that several killers and maybe even serial killers most likely WERE roaming the East End before, during and after the Ripper. Unle4ss you believe that the number of torso murders from 1874 and onwards also were perpetrated by the Ripper (and I doubt that many police officials actually believed thopse were the work of the Ripper). And of course we have Klosowski and Neil Cream just a couple of years after the Ripper.

So the argument that serial killers 'are rare' might be valid in many cases but not necessarily here.

All the best

Yes Glenn

This is true, and I have also drawn your attension to a series of muders in Mexico City in the 1970's, when a number of serial killers did indeed develop at the same time...

However the other murders Michael alludes to....were very differant crimes involving cut throats...

As you both well know the victims: Tabram, Nichols, chapman, Eddows, were unique...Stride and Kelly fitted into that pattern....

They were prostitutes...unfortunates that needed the money and took the risk.

However you package it up, Stride and Kelly were believed by the policman incharge of teh case to be killed by the same person, and I simply think that the most logical conclussion.

Pirate