Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2 Killers Or 1 Killer?????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Keep in mind that any serial killer that "quits" for whatever reason is always going to have a last victim so I am not sure that that automatically casts a special status upon them and makes them significant for some reason.

    c.d.
    Hi cd
    not sure if you were responding to my post but I agree. It was the circumstances surrounding the night of her death that leads me to beleive that they knew each other (unlike the earlier victims) which would give her a "special status" in my view.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • #47
      I agree with Sarah Lee here. I simply can’t believe that more than one mad eviscerator was at large at the same time in Whitechapel on that awful autumn.

      But there were clearly multiole murderers and indeed another mass murderer.

      There was the domestic on the night of the Stride/Eddowes murders.

      There was also the "Torso Killer" whom I don't think I have ever seen anyone ascribe seriously to JtR.

      But how can you be SO definite? It is all unproven and suppositional. I understand an emotional appeal to tradition - the need to aggrandise JtR to keep him from being just a small time murderer. But however long-standing a belief is surely all it is?

      Phil

      Comment


      • #48
        Not sure of anything...

        Certainly you're correct Phil it's all suppositional. And I'm not so sure I'm just offering an opinion. I personally have no emotional attachment to the canon. I think all of us have had our doubts about Stride and MJK at times. I still do. I just think the post death evisceration is very specific and unlikely to have multiple simultaneous practitioners. Murder is one thing, dismemberment another, evisceration a third. MO's certainly vary but I think that's the exception rather than the rule....I like your thinking though.......we certainly need all the alleyways of Whitechapel explored.........


        Greg

        Comment


        • #49
          I think that if Jack knew Mary it would only be a passing acquaitance. I am not convinced a deep personal knowledge is the only reason that MJK would have taken a John home; if she had been a higher class call girl in the past, working from a brothel, and willing to try and live abroad with a John in the past taking a guy home would not be such a vast step. Risky yes, but a mistake peole may have made if complacent, especially if you were used to having johns know where to find you in a brothel, and if you had Barnett around the home a lot. It is more likely that Mary may have, er, serviced Jack before, considered him unlikely to be a threat, and if shewas desperate enough to sell her body she may have given in to him suggesting they went somewhere more private tosee what they were doing.

          The increased brutality is most likely a combination of the more secluded location, the amount of time available, and maybe by simple virtue of being able to use a light or candle to see the handywork.

          Just ideas and speculation, sceptical criticism of them will of course be gratefully recieved.
          There Will Be Trouble! http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Little-Tro...s=T.+E.+Hodden

          Comment


          • #50
            knowing killer

            there seems to be no evidence that she took clients home as she lived with Barnett for a while she did however let other prostitutes stay which Barnett said he did not like

            Comment


            • #51
              True, but we can not exclude the possibility, or misuse that statement to read "MJK did not take clients home, so a familiar of hers is the only person who could kill her at home." There are of course other, equally good possibilities; her home may have been by one of the dark alleys and sheltered closes prostitutes used (I have seen references to passages in houses or gardens being used, so a fumble in the shadow of her home would not be a stretch), jack could have just seen her going home alone while otherwise engaged. Or followed her home, or been a peeping tom, or anything else. We simply have no evidence to include or exclude such theories.

              There are plausible reasons jack may have been a john. We are unlikely to have evidence if she did take clients home, not least because she would not want Barnet to know, but also because a working girl in her possition is unlikely to keep much in the way of evidence of her activities.
              There Will Be Trouble! http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Little-Tro...s=T.+E.+Hodden

              Comment


              • #52
                Tomtom

                Everything you say is possible - but is it plausible?

                We have no evidence from inhabitants of the court that it was used for such assignations and seems to have been a place of frequent access and egress (I deliberately avoided the double-entendre of comings and goings!!). It was very different, I feel, to the backyard of 29 Hanbury St, for instance.

                Further, what about the way in which the body was found, its probably location on the bed at time of death, its complete or almost state of nudity?

                By "a familiar" I would mean someone in a state of relatively close acquainanceship with MJK - a lover or friend who knew something of her movements and circumstances (that Joe had moved out, that Maria was no longer sleeping there, as well as the operation of the door, unless JK herself did what was required.

                So far as a "peeping Tom" is concerned, how would he know how to operate the door, whether Joe would return? Anyone looking through the window was in full view of the rest of the court remember.

                Finally, the door and its mechanism/interim workings defeated the police next day - why would a casual murderer work it out so readily, if they could not?

                I don't rule out anything you say, but I remain unconvinced by your argument.

                Phil

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                  I agree with Sarah Lee here. I simply can’t believe that more than one mad eviscerator was at large at the same time in Whitechapel on that awful autumn.

                  But there were clearly multiole murderers and indeed another mass murderer.

                  There was the domestic on the night of the Stride/Eddowes murders.

                  There was also the "Torso Killer" whom I don't think I have ever seen anyone ascribe seriously to JtR.

                  But how can you be SO definite? It is all unproven and suppositional. I understand an emotional appeal to tradition - the need to aggrandise JtR to keep him from being just a small time murderer. But however long-standing a belief is surely all it is?

                  Phil
                  I think that very little can be said with absolute certainty, the best that we can do is make assumptions on the balance of probability.

                  Without a doubt there were other killers, even multiple murderers operating at the same time and in the same vicinity. However, MJK's death to my mind fits too neatly as an escalation within the series of killings to be completely unrelated.

                  That leaves me with the possibility that she was either killed by the same person or by somebody emulating his style . . . and I stand by my assertion that it seems unlikely that there was another killer operating at the same time and place who was equally enamoured of throat slashing followed by evisceration. It's not unique, but it's certainly very distinctive.
                  Sarah

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Hi,
                    If Kelly was more savaged killed is because she was indoors so the killer could have felt more confortable and had more time to do the job. If there are differences between the murders is because M.O. and signatue evolve. In fact to kill someone indoors after killing some others in the street is an evolution of the signature.
                    To think that there was a plot to kill Kelly being the previous ones just acts to confuse is to give a serial killer a plot to kill, and we all know serial killers kill for some other reasons

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                      Tomtom

                      Everything you say is possible - but is it plausible?

                      We have no evidence from inhabitants of the court that it was used for such assignations and seems to have been a place of frequent access and egress (I deliberately avoided the double-entendre of comings and goings!!). It was very different, I feel, to the backyard of 29 Hanbury St, for instance.

                      Further, what about the way in which the body was found, its probably location on the bed at time of death, its complete or almost state of nudity?

                      By "a familiar" I would mean someone in a state of relatively close acquainanceship with MJK - a lover or friend who knew something of her movements and circumstances (that Joe had moved out, that Maria was no longer sleeping there, as well as the operation of the door, unless JK herself did what was required.

                      So far as a "peeping Tom" is concerned, how would he know how to operate the door, whether Joe would return? Anyone looking through the window was in full view of the rest of the court remember.

                      Finally, the door and its mechanism/interim workings defeated the police next day - why would a casual murderer work it out so readily, if they could not?

                      I don't rule out anything you say, but I remain unconvinced by your argument.

                      Phil
                      That the Police did not notice the broken window by the latch does not mean Jack can't have seen it. If he were a peeping Tom, he may have seen either MJK or Barnett use the window to access the latch. There are many, very petty criminals who have worked out how to reach through a broken window and operate a latch, so why should we assume Jack was unable to do so? Although was the delay not because the officers thought the hound was being brought to them and did not want to confuse the scent?

                      I am not saying that the argument is not what I believe to have happened, only stating my reasons why I have not yet discounted possibility. The simple answer to some of the questions (Did Jack know Barnett had moved out, how could he be sure he would not be interuppted, how did he know MJK was naked and so forth) could simply be: He did not. He could not be sure he would not be interupted outside during other killings, and may have been during at least one, but he was willing to take the risk. Why would he not take the same risk in this case? Bundy took a comparable risk breaking into houses (with other people in the same house!) to beat and or abduct victims. Perhaps Jack spent every second looking over his shoulder. But it is not reason enough to discount the possibility.

                      If Jack was familiar with MJK we have to recognise that it does not automatically follow that MJK was the target or motive for the entire series of killings. He, in all probability did not kill the others to get to her, there was no more evidence for a calculated motive to her death than those who went before. In this situation the more likely scenario is that MJK was somebody in his life who he happened to turn on when "hulking out", and not the focus of the entire series. The idea can not be ruled out either, but just as Phil is clearly ranking the possibilities in order of plausibility we must do the same, and to my mind MJK being the intended victim all along is somewhere bellow the random stranger. The idea Jack may have known her is more plausible than the idea he knew her and killed others in place of revenge on her.

                      If one of the victims was known to Jack, and a motivated killing I would expect it to be Mary Ann Nichols. It seems (given the patterns of other killers) more likely he had a motive for the first victim, then found he had a taste for the killing and moved on to other victims. It would seem far more likely than forcing himself to kill random strangers building up to a motivated killing, or killing random strangers to disguise a motive, or other theories of the ilk.
                      There Will Be Trouble! http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Little-Tro...s=T.+E.+Hodden

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Opportunity doesn't knock...

                        I sometimes think some of you put too much credence in planning. Suppose Jack was trolling through the alleys as was his wont………he sees Blotchy stumble out at 3 a.m., watches as he does or does not do anything with the door….he senses opportunity!....he moves away and returns a bit later and looks through the window and fumbles around for a latch………..boom he’s in………he approaches Mary just as she wakes as she gets out a drunken ‘murder’ ….he grabs her throat and it’s done………you must consider the thrill of possibly getting caught as part of the adrenaline rush and if someone came by he might just scream ‘go away, I’ve paid my time’ or some such………..if they catch him red handed ‘Oh well now I go down in history’… the nobody that I am………..luck was probably Jack’s greatest talent………recall that Bundy went into a sorority house in the middle of the night and murdered girls among what was something like 50 girls……..how’s that for bold…did he think about getting caught…?...these guys are subject to impulses which none of us understand…………….it’s not rocket science to reach through a broken window and flip a latch…………..see……. one person’s speculations are as good as another’s or a well, in my case maybe not....?……………….


                        Greg

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Would being in a building maybe give the false sense of security that he was less likely to be caught? After all, it was sheltered, had a door, offered some privacy. As secluded as his other haunts had been, they were outside, in places where somebody eventually stumbled onto the body. A few minutes, or a few hours later, but he certainly did not have the same habit of other killers of putting bodies where they would not be found for days, weeks, months, or decades. The bodies he left were essentially in plain sight.
                          There Will Be Trouble! http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Little-Tro...s=T.+E.+Hodden

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                            I agree with Sarah Lee here. I simply can’t believe that more than one mad eviscerator was at large at the same time in Whitechapel on that awful autumn.

                            But there were clearly multiole murderers and indeed another mass murderer.

                            There was the domestic on the night of the Stride/Eddowes murders.

                            There was also the "Torso Killer" whom I don't think I have ever seen anyone ascribe seriously to JtR.

                            But how can you be SO definite? It is all unproven and suppositional. I understand an emotional appeal to tradition - the need to aggrandise JtR to keep him from being just a small time murderer. But however long-standing a belief is surely all it is?

                            Phil
                            Hi Phil

                            There was also the "Torso Killer" whom I don't think I have ever seen anyone ascribe seriously to JtR.

                            I have. (although I think more maybe possible than probable).

                            Perhaps if the torso killer was JtR the torso victims were females he finagled back to his place and the Whitechapel murders were ones he did not. he cut up the bodies to more easily remove from his abode (work location or house).
                            Since the JtR murders happened on weekends or holidays, maybe for some reason those were also the times that he could not bring victims back to his place of work or home-like at those times family member were home so he had to kill outside.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Interesting bevy of posts since my last one.

                              I don't think I have anything to say, I've set out my stall.

                              I think, however, that - where MJK is concerned - some of you are very much set on the one "Jack"/serial killer/no debate argument. That no longer stacks up for me - but I agree, it is possible and i'm going to say nothing about the arguments proposed except that they no longer convince me.

                              Open your eyes and come into the water, juggle with the spakling idea - it's very refreshing and mentally stimulating.

                              Phil

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I didn't have time to expand on my previous post on this thread so I will just
                                point out (although TomTom has made some of the same points):
                                -Jack could have observed Mary opening the door via the window on the night that she was killed, or at an earlier date

                                -he could have worked it out after racking his brains, desperately seeking to get in and observing the window

                                -he could have could have heard gossip that Mary used this method of entry

                                -Blotchy could have left the door open when he left, which Jack observed, or he may simply have tried the door and found it open

                                Although I don't think that Jack held the missing key (he would have left it in the room, since it would be incriminating), there is nothing to say that

                                -Mary didn't drop the key, Jack see her do it and pick it up

                                -Jack didn't steal the key from her when she was drunk

                                -Mary and Joe didn't hide the key in the Court (they might not have had doubles) and Jack steal it.

                                Where a key is missing, there rests the possibility that someone else had it and used it.

                                Someone pointed out on another thread that the police may not have wanted to reach an arm across a table piled with flesh to open the door,
                                even if they had seen the broken window.

                                If Jack was an acquaintance who drank in the same pubs as Mary, he may have been well aware that Joe had moved out, even if he didn't know her well.

                                If Jack had observed Blotchy in the room, he may have surmised that Mary was not expecting Joe to roll up.

                                It was a rainy night, with fewer people out on the street, and Jack may have thought that no other man was likely to turn up that night.

                                He may have thought that even if someone did turn up (another prostitute
                                looking for a roof), he could easily get her in the room and kill her too -having a sharp knife, surprise on his side, and a will not to be caught.

                                If Jack did lurk around the court, stalking Mary, he may have spied on the few people coming and going, including Bowyer. Up until the moment that he broke into the room he had not done anything wrong, and if he wasn't seen reaching through the broken pane, he couldn't be accused of anything.

                                People living in the court were not unduly suspicious of strange men (witness Bowyer).

                                There was a coat hanging over the window, and people in the court could not just look through the window.

                                There are lots of plausible scenarios as to how Jack could have broken into Mary's room, none of which can be disproved.
                                http://youtu.be/GcBr3rosvNQ

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X