Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The kill ladder

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

  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    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


    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Lewis C
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    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



    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    Time for another new thread!


    Let's build the "Kill Ladder"

    5 rungs...

    Lets plug my favorite suspects into this ladder.

    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Last edited by caz; 04-24-2024, 02:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    Now...where to put Druitt?
    Rung 5 - well researched, connected to the case, no known history of violence

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    I like the idea of a Kill ladder. It plus the comments shows Bury as the clear front runner as the best suspect. And also has the frankly ridiculous suspect Lechmere on Rung 5.

    Cheers John

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Fair point RD. You have known murderers automatically at Rung 1. I was simply going on who I thought the likeliest?
    That's also a fair point from you Herlock.

    I tried to avoid adding my personal preferences to the ladder; because some individuals I favour more than others...but I wanted to try and make the concept more objective by aiming to differentiate between...

    ...those who had killed/murdered, those who were known to be violent, those involved in criminality/endorsing violence, those who had no known violent attributes but relatively unknown entities, and then those whom we have a life history that contains zero evidence of violence, criminality or murder.

    Druitt is a very difficult one to include because he has been on the radar, had mental ill health and his behaviour was peculiar and potentially suspicious in context with the case.

    Unlike Lechmere and Maybrick, he did have particular issues that would mean he doesn't fit right on the bottom rung. That said, he wasn't a murderer and so doesn't fit on rung 1 either.

    IMO he doesn't fit onto any of the rungs based on the framework I have initiated.

    But that's a good thing because it shows that my idea of a Kill Ladder is flawed.

    That's why I like your post, because Druitt must be included somewhere, but he doesn't quite fit anywhere.


    One thing that the ladder isn't, is a league table of suspects.

    I wanted to avoid my previous attempt a while back when I made up that Suspect League Table.

    It soon descended into chaos because it became very much saturated by somewhat disingenuous comments that made a mockery of what I was trying to achieve.


    This time around, the Kill ladder was more about known data regarding convictions, violence and murders etc... and is therefore more about the known data, rather than the opinion of the data so to speak.



    It's also important to mention that just because Bury is placed on rung 1, and then Maybrick and Lechmere on Rung 5; that has no impact on who I believe the Ripper may have been, but based solely on the objective data that comes from fact.

    In other words, I am not suggesting that I believe that Maybrick and Lechmere are not the Ripper and Bury was; I am just aiming to differentiate between those individuals who were known to have murdered, to those who have no known history of violence.


    We know that the Ripper had a violent streak.

    We know that all humans are capable of being violent


    But it's the actions that speak louder than words.


    The kill ladder separates those individuals who were proven to have taken another life, from those who may or may not have written a diary claiming to have done so.


    I don't believe that anyone from rung 1 or 5 was the Ripper


    And that's why I think that despite it's flaws, it also kind of works objectively.



    Now...where to put Druitt?



    RD




    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    William Grant Grainger is rung 2. He stabbed a prostitute in the throat (or genitals, not sure EDIT I checked and it was the genitals). She survived, so he’s not quite rung 1. But close.


    That's a great entry onto the Kill Ladder.

    Grainger certainly had the intent.

    For me, he is on rung 2; but tried to climb to rung 1 for sure.

    Certainly borderline.


    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    I never realised Druitt was a known/convicted murderer?


    Interesting


    RD
    Fair point RD. You have known murderers automatically at Rung 1. I was simply going on who I thought the likeliest?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    William Grant Grainger is rung 2. He stabbed a prostitute in the throat (or genitals, not sure EDIT I checked and it was the genitals). She survived, so he’s not quite rung 1. But close.
    Last edited by Kattrup; 04-24-2024, 09:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Sadler is rung 2 or 3. He was known to have a viole temper and was involved in two violent incidents on the night of Coles’ murder.
    I cannot recall if he is known to have assaulted anyone, so probably rung 3.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X