The kill ladder

[Kattrup]

Now...where to put Druitt?

Rung 5 - well researched, connected to the case, no known history of violence

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d also suggest - mentioned as a good suspect by a high ranking police officer.

[caz]

Anticipating another diatribe about my personal living arrangements - sorry, that was Angela Rayner at PMQs today - I meant about my 'delusional' take on the Great Barrett Hoax theory, I'll just put it out there that James Maybrick did openly strike his wife on at least one occasion, giving her a black eye, and he also threatened a nursemaid with breaking every bone in her body if he caught her chastising his young child again. I am quite sure that his own bad habits eventually led to his early death, and his behaviour in his final days and weeks showed a vengeful streak and callous disregard for what would happen to his wife after he had shuffled off. He may only have wanted to cut her out of his will, and it may not have occurred to him that suspicion would likely fall on her in the event of his death, but that's precisely what happened and she very nearly hanged as a direct result.

In short, the man was a drug-using, brothel creeping, London frequenting, womanising brute with double standards and a secret double life.

No evidence that he murdered anyone, or that his handwriting is in a certain diary, but very far from a nice chap, or the decent family man who emerges from everything we have learned so far about Charles Lechmere.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

It does sound a little like non-sensical gibberish designed to disrupt a perfectly good thread; but I get it.

I would expect no less from some folk

I was simply pointing out the inherent problem in dismissing any suspect who had no prior history of violence. I don't see how that constitutes "gibberish" as you put it. I had no intention of disrupting the thread. But I guess I fall into the dreaded category of "some folk."

c.d.

[Fiver]

Time for another new thread!


Let's build the "Kill Ladder"

5 rungs...

Lets plug my favorite suspects into this ladder.

Now, if we move to the next rung down, we also have several Persons of interest with a known history of violence...

Rung 2...

George Capel Scudamore Lechmere. Doesn't reach the first rung only because he failed to kill his wife when he slit her throat.

David Cohen. Record of violence while committed.

We then have the bottom rung, which includes those individuals with NO KNOWN evidence of a history of violence or the capabilities to kill AND was well documented through time both before and after the murders...


Rung 5 -

James Hardiman. Better than most Rung 5s in that he had a possible motive and possible anatomical skill.

[The Rookie Detective]

Anticipating another diatribe about my personal living arrangements - sorry, that was Angela Rayner at PMQs today - I meant about my 'delusional' take on the Great Barrett Hoax theory, I'll just put it out there that James Maybrick did openly strike his wife on at least one occasion, giving her a black eye, and he also threatened a nursemaid with breaking every bone in her body if he caught her chastising his young child again. I am quite sure that his own bad habits eventually led to his early death, and his behaviour in his final days and weeks showed a vengeful streak and callous disregard for what would happen to his wife after he had shuffled off. He may only have wanted to cut her out of his will, and it may not have occurred to him that suspicion would likely fall on her in the event of his death, but that's precisely what happened and she very nearly hanged as a direct result.

In short, the man was a drug-using, brothel creeping, London frequenting, womanising brute with double standards and a secret double life.

No evidence that he murdered anyone, or that his handwriting is in a certain diary, but very far from a nice chap, or the decent family man who emerges from everything we have learned so far about Charles Lechmere.

Love,

Caz
X

That's an excellent point!


I stand corrected over Maybrick's capacity for violence.


This highlights my reasoning behind starting this thread; that all of the known data regarding particular individuals is open to all.


I know little about Maybrick and so I stand corrected by your brilliant post.


Perhaps Maybrick's violent and volatile behavior towards his wife suggests he could be placed on rung 2.


Interestingly, it's only Lechmere that is currently cemented onto the bottom rung with no KNOWN history of violence or aggression towards women or others. No record of criminality and no link to any of the victims, apart from finding one of course.


The only comment that I would make for the sake of objective balance; is that some serial killers are only known for their extreme violence after they have been caught and ousted. In other words, by Lechmere having no known history of violence or murder, could also mean that he was able to conceal it, as some serial killers do.

Based on the Kill Ladder, he is the last person you would suspect, but that could work both ways.



RD

[Lewis C]

Rung 5 - well researched, connected to the case, no known history of violence

I agree. Druitt fits the definition of Rung 5 perfectly. As I mentioned in my previous post in this thread, Tumblety is the one that I find hard to classify.

[caz]

That's an excellent point!


I stand corrected over Maybrick's capacity for violence.


This highlights my reasoning behind starting this thread; that all of the known data regarding particular individuals is open to all.


I know little about Maybrick and so I stand corrected by your brilliant post.


Perhaps Maybrick's violent and volatile behavior towards his wife suggests he could be placed on rung 2.


Interestingly, it's only Lechmere that is currently cemented onto the bottom rung with no KNOWN history of violence or aggression towards women or others. No record of criminality and no link to any of the victims, apart from finding one of course.


The only comment that I would make for the sake of objective balance; is that some serial killers are only known for their extreme violence after they have been caught and ousted. In other words, by Lechmere having no known history of violence or murder, could also mean that he was able to conceal it, as some serial killers do.

Based on the Kill Ladder, he is the last person you would suspect, but that could work both ways.



RD

Thank you most kindly, Rookie.

Before someone wakes up and takes us both to task, I'd have to add that in Maybrick's day it was perfectly legal, and considered acceptable or even desirable, to give the missus a good hiding for paying attention to another man, looking at another man, or just looking at her husband "in a funny way". So the evidence for Maybrick being violent, volatile and threatening, on just one or two occasions, and for 'justifiable' reasons in those good old days, would not be enough to single him out from the crowd.

Today, he could be done for assault, as well as the threat to break the bones of an employee. Maybrick should have sacked the woman on the spot if he thought his child was at risk in her care, but he evidently thought the threat of severe physical violence would be taken seriously and would take care of the problem.

It's a tricky one, because my own father only ever smacked me once, and it was my mother who made him do it! My brothers and I had to line up downstairs after making too much noise upstairs, and I remember feeling so sorry for my Dad, because he was clearly uncomfortable with it and couldn't have cared less about the noise. He just wanted his tea after a day at the office.

In brief, a snapshot of a one-off instance could be the tip of an iceberg, indicating someone with violent tendencies, but equally it could be a genuinely unique and much regretted incident by someone like my Dad, who wouldn't say boo to a goose.

While someone could have no known history of violence and still turn out to be a knife-wielding serial killer, it seems perverse to use examples of such killers to argue for Jack the Ripper being another, who managed to save up all his wolfish hunger for Whitechapel weekends, so he wouldn't be tempted to hurt a fly at any other time.

I would look for a pattern of violent behaviour, involving a lack of self-restraint which was unlikely to be curable, and I'm not sure how many ripper suspects display that kind of pathology.

Interesting thread, by the way!

Love,

Caz
X

[The Rookie Detective]

Thank you most kindly, Rookie.

Before someone wakes up and takes us both to task, I'd have to add that in Maybrick's day it was perfectly legal, and considered acceptable or even desirable, to give the missus a good hiding for paying attention to another man, looking at another man, or just looking at her husband "in a funny way". So the evidence for Maybrick being violent, volatile and threatening, on just one or two occasions, and for 'justifiable' reasons in those good old days, would not be enough to single him out from the crowd.

Today, he could be done for assault, as well as the threat to break the bones of an employee. Maybrick should have sacked the woman on the spot if he thought his child was at risk in her care, but he evidently thought the threat of severe physical violence would be taken seriously and would take care of the problem.

It's a tricky one, because my own father only ever smacked me once, and it was my mother who made him do it! My brothers and I had to line up downstairs after making too much noise upstairs, and I remember feeling so sorry for my Dad, because he was clearly uncomfortable with it and couldn't have cared less about the noise. He just wanted his tea after a day at the office.

In brief, a snapshot of a one-off instance could be the tip of an iceberg, indicating someone with violent tendencies, but equally it could be a genuinely unique and much regretted incident by someone like my Dad, who wouldn't say boo to a goose.

While someone could have no known history of violence and still turn out to be a knife-wielding serial killer, it seems perverse to use examples of such killers to argue for Jack the Ripper being another, who managed to save up all his wolfish hunger for Whitechapel weekends, so he wouldn't be tempted to hurt a fly at any other time.

I would look for a pattern of violent behaviour, involving a lack of self-restraint which was unlikely to be curable, and I'm not sure how many ripper suspects display that kind of pathology.

Interesting thread, by the way!

Love,

Caz
X

I love this post, and agree with you wholeheartedly regarding looking for the pattern of violence.

There's an important distinction to make between an average person making an error of judgment by choosing to use violence, compared to an inherently bad individual with a liking for inflicting pain and suffering on a chosen victim.


RD