Team Jack

[DVV]

Well said, Roy.
The most prolific French serial killer is one Robert Badinter.
Still alive and free to walk.

[Roy Corduroy]

They hang people for murder now. Or at least electrocute them. It doesn't stop killers. Never has.

No of course it never has stopped people from murder, but it vastly reduced their numbers. Case in point, there were 15,000 murders in the US in 2010 but only 46 executions. That's 3 executions for every thousand murders. Without knowing I'll bet there was a lot closer fraction of murders/executions then. And that's why there were fewer murders then. Everybody and their dog knew that. Then.

Ergo it reduced the chance some bloke would foolishly sign on as a murder team member. Then. It's a difficult concept for us moderns to grasp.

Roy

[lynn cates]

yummy

Hello Simon.

"BTW. Try sampling Haggis [sheep's heart, liver and lungs] next 25th January.
Delicious."

I think we could fall in love. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rivkah,

What have the late-to-the-party Ted Bundy or Zodiac got to do with the price of Ripperological fish?

You cannot retrofit motives, tactics or profiles.

BTW. Try sampling Haggis [sheep's heart, liver and lungs] next 25th January.

Delicious. Grilled kidneys, too.

And with a few Fava beans and a nice Chianti . . .

Regards,

Simon

[RivkahChaya]

- why are there MO differences between some murders?

Cripes, it's not like manufacturing an airplane, where it's somehow wrong if it doesn't go exactly the same way every time.

Ted Bundy usually lured women somewhere by pretending have a broken arm or leg, and he usually strangled them, but he beat a few victims to death, he raped some and not others. He raped some women when they were alive, and raped the corpses of others. He killed some women in their own homes. He dumped most of the bodies in secondary sites, but he killed few in remote locations, and just left them.

And that just Bundy. Zodiac apparently was trying to kill people in different way, stabbing, shooting, ambushing, stalking, abducting, because that was more fun for him.

Since we don't know who the killer was, and can't ask him "Why this; why not that?" we can't know what his primary motivation was each time, and what parts of the murders were the "fun" parts, and what parts were the "necessary" parts, either of which may have changed from victim to victim-- there's still a common thread in that opening up women with a knife was fun, but there still may have been a secondary goal that changed from murder to murder, such as "I just want to rip her open and see her guts spill out"/"I want to cut out an organ"/"I want to mutilate her face"/"I want to cut out an edible organ."

On that last one, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's pretty common in England to eat kidneys from, I guess, cows, maybe sheep or goats, and livers as well, but not pancreas or uteri. It might seem a very strange distinction to us, since most to posters probably cannibalism is cannibalism whether it's a cut from a muscle that looks pretty much like a steak, or a human heart. (Frankly, I'm a vegetarian, and it's all gross to me-- I don't find the idea of eating human meat any more objectionable than the idea of eating pieces of a dead cow, or sheep, even though I understand the ethics, but this is why I'm a vegetarian.) Anyway, someone for whom human meat is not objectionable still might find some parts preferable to others, and the preferred parts would probably be the ones that are eaten when they are part of a cow or sheep.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

How?

Nichols was probably drunk and tired. Speed and power to strangle. Prob could've over-powered her without much trouble. I was watching an interview of Mike Tyson talking about how to knock opponents out. He said it wasn't hitting them hard that did it so much as getting them focused else where so they didn't see it coming so the brain can't brace for it. Chapman was ill injured and tired. Not much resistance there either I bet. Eddowes may have been grabbed from behind and taken to the ground, throat slit and held in place until she was no longer capable of anything. Although her face looks swollen which could indicate she was struck first. I am not sure how much swelling would've occured since she died shortly after and was drained of blood. Plus the facial mutilations. Need someone with more knowledge to verify of refute the possibility of that. My personal experience with head trauma is a large blow to the head doesn't result in much initial noise.

[Errata]

Good evening Errata,



Could you please name a question it would answer? If it were a pair at work.



They hung people then for murder. That's one thing I can think of which works against the 'team' idea. The sheer risk involved.

Roy

They hang people for murder now. Or at least electrocute them. It doesn't stop killers. Never has.

As to what questions would be answered

1. It's not just how did this man take these women down without a sound, but how did he take them down without a fight? Without interacting with their environment? It's not just that they didn't scream. They didn't struggle. They didn't claw at their killer, they didn't kick out at the walls or fences. They didn't crawl at the ground, they didn't dig grooves in the dirt with their heels. They didn't tear fingernails off, they didn't scrape off any skin, they didn't get rubbed in the dirt... these women laid down and died. And that's weird. Two people can subdue a woman so she can't fight while she's being killed. One man sort of has to choose between subduing her or killing her.

2. It's unusual for a serial killer to have a fetish for two different parts of the body. Jack clearly spent a lot of time on the throat, a lot of overkill, and then the abdomen. Two killers with one fetish each is more common than one killer with two fetishes.

3. Two killers would account for why there are so many ripper like murders that aren't considered ripper murders. If they killed separately, you would get half of the qualities of a Ripper murder, but not all.

4. It might account for why the Ripper murders simply ended. If the partnership was dissolved, or one moved away or died, the other would have a hard time continuing. Sometimes it causes that partner to devolve so that he gets sloppy and gets caught, sometimes that partner cannot continue especially if he was the submissive one, sometimes the nature of the relationship causes the submissive partner to commit suicide without the dominant. Or he could have simply continued killing, but without the input of his partner, the murders simply looked too different to be Ripper murders. No matter what, he would not be able to continue the pace of the Ripper Killings. It's a folie au deux thing, and without being fed by a partner, his motivation would fail.

I mean, a pair of killers aren't the only solutions to these issues, but Occam's Razor makes it attractive.

[Ashkenaz]

And to bring in a boring dose of reality nearly all serial crime has a one perpetrator.

I agree, although I dont agree with the canonical five victims. To that number I would add another 2 or 3. making a copy cat killer or two responsible for 3 maybe 4.

I believe JtR also killed Martha and Elisabeth and maybe a few more.

[lynn cates]

good

Hello Damaso. Good list.

Good luck finding the answers.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Heh heh

[QUOTE=Damaso Marte;267488]Not Errata, but here is a short list:

- why are eyewitness descriptions inconsistent? Long's foreigner seems different from Lawende's sailor seems different from Blotchy

Lighting, vision, clothing, terrain, prejudices, alcohol or drug consumption, lack of sleep, seeing what your brain tells you.

- why are there MO differences between some murders

Apprehension, location, time, awareness of public and bobbies, weather, alcohol or drugs, frustration, opportunity, planning, illness, injury


- how did the killer avoid the police / know when to stop?

Knowledge of area, familiarity with beats, weather again, illness, incarceration, death, bordedom


- how did the victims get taken down without any sound?

Timing, skill, manipulation
- Israel Schwartz

- why did Robert Murphy give a fake name, "Robert Paul", at the Nichols inquest?

Crossmere, Crossmere, Crossmere.

Oh, they say sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. It's better to be both. Just a few things worth considering. Many more.

[Damaso Marte]

Could you please name a question it would answer? If it were a pair at work.

Not Errata, but here is a short list:

- why are eyewitness descriptions inconsistent? Long's foreigner seems different from Lawende's sailor seems different from Blotchy

- why are there MO differences between some murders

- how did the killer avoid the police / know when to stop?

- how did the victims get taken down without any sound?

- Israel Schwartz

- why did Robert Murphy give a fake name, "Robert Paul", at the Nichols inquest?

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Errata,

I posted something on another thread about how I don't believe that the killer was actually a pair of killers, even though that would answer a lot of questions.

Could you please name a question it would answer? If it were a pair at work.

I can't think of a reason why I should discount the theory. Despite the fact that I do. Is there some piece of evidence out there that says that we are definitely looking at a single perpetrator?

They hung people then for murder. That's one thing I can think of which works against the 'team' idea. The sheer risk involved.

Roy

[RivkahChaya]

Maybe the apron ripped, because they were fighting over who got to keep it as a souvenir.

[Errata]

Maybe the apron bit was a foil to keep from getting caught. After the murder they go their separate ways. One is close by, but nowhere near Goulston. The other is farther away, and drops the apron at Goulston to keep the cops from looking at people close by in a different direction.

Like a football fake.

[RivkahChaya]

There are a lot of reasons someone might be sick on the road, including food poisoning, GI virus, and alcohol withdrawal. In fact, in a true alcoholic, not getting a drink is more likely to lead to vomiting than getting one.