If a doctor was responsible for the murders.......................

[John Wheat]

If a doctor was responsible for the murders wouldn't the cuts have been cleaner?

[lynn cates]

Whitechapel

Hello Harry. Thanks.

"Let's stick to Whitechapel, shall we?"

Delighted to. Kate was killed in Aldgate, City of London, Liz, St. George's in the East. So we can omit the "Double Event" altogether.

". . .throat slashed left to right . . ."

Well, since "MJK" was the converse, you eliminate her as "not ripper-esque." Keep going. You are on a roll.

"With a serial killer on the loose. . ."

What serial killer? Your criteria have eliminated Brown, Eddowes and Stride.

"Not a betting man, I take it?"

Certainly not. I work for a living.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

A lot more than that. Don't forget Mr. Brown who also killed, and many other murders that year.

Let's stick to Whitechapel, shall we?

What was ripper-esque about Liz's killing?

Same type of victim, throat slashed left to right, body positioned so that the blood flowed away from the abdomen, no sign of blood splatter.

And, again, only two miles west, same night, another woman died from a knife. What are the odds?

With a serial killer on the loose, deprived of his finishing his last prey? Pretty high. One could argue that Jack was taking his frustrations out on Eddowes, hence the extent of her mutilation.

(And, no offense, but whom CARES about probability theory?)

Not a betting man, I take it?

[lynn cates]

cheap

Hello CD. Thanks.

Certainly not. I'd NEVER regard you as cheap.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

From you, of course.

Cheers.
LC

That's a bit of a cheap shot is it not?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

source

Hello CD. Thanks.

From you, of course.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

So, let me get this straight. If a woman is killed, we don't really care about probability. If we know who did it fine. But if we have no clue, then it must be "Jack"? That's just great. What a fantastic procedure. And, actually, I suspected such all along.

Sounds like Baxter's assessment of Liz's killer--he got in and out quickly and was not caught.

Hope they've reserved me a bed at St. Mary's Bedlam. I could use it just now.

Cheers.
LC

Say what??? Where in the world did that come from?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Simon

Hello Mike. Thanks for posting that.

I'm sure you are familiar with Simon Wood's excellent piece on precisely those views?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

"I'll retire to Bedlam."

Hello CD. Thanks.

So, let me get this straight. If a woman is killed, we don't really care about probability. If we know who did it fine. But if we have no clue, then it must be "Jack"? That's just great. What a fantastic procedure. And, actually, I suspected such all along.

Sounds like Baxter's assessment of Liz's killer--he got in and out quickly and was not caught.

Hope they've reserved me a bed at St. Mary's Bedlam. I could use it just now.

Cheers.
LC

[mklhawley]

Interesting how they were suspecting a single killer even before the first of the canonical five:

Echo
London, U.K.
10 August 1888
…THE VICTIM'S WOUNDS.
A perplexing feature in connection with the outrage is the number of injuries on the young woman's body. That the stabs were from a weapon shaped like a bayonet, is almost established beyond doubt. The wound over the heart was alone sufficient to kill, and death must have occurred as soon as that was inflicted. Unless the perpetrator were a madman, or suffering to an unusual extent from drink-delirium, no tangible explanation can be given of the reason for inflicting the other thirty-eight injuries, some of which almost seem as if they were due to thrusts and cuts from a penknife. On the other hand, if the lesser wounds were given before the one fatal injury, the cries of the deceased must have been heard by those who, at the time of the outrage, were sleeping within a few yards of the spot where the deed was committed.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OUTRAGE
are at present as mysterious as those connected with the brutal and yet undiscovered murder perpetrated a few months ago, also in Whitechapel, where some miscreant, in the dead of night, murdered a woman in the street by thrusting a walking-stick or other blunt weapon into her body with great violence. For ferocity, the two cases are somewhat analogous, and some of the Scotland-yard experts in tracing criminals and fathoming crime incline to the opinion that one man is responsible for the two crimes.


Did this bias their opinion of a single killer as the rest were being mutilated or was it a single killer? In both these cases, no harvesting.

Sincerely,

Mike

[c.d.]

Hello Harry. Thanks.

"Fair enough, but now you've got two murderers you need to account for."

A lot more than that. Don't forget Mr. Brown who also killed, and many other murders that year.

"As I posted earlier, what are the chances that two Ripper-esque murders happen on the same night, within an hour of each other?"

What was ripper-esque about Liz's killing? And, again, only two miles west, same night, another woman died from a knife. What are the odds? (And, no offense, but whom CARES about probability theory?)

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

You forgot to mention that Mrs. Brown was not a prostitute but rather it was a domestic killing.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Mrs. Brown you've got a lovely . . .

Hello Harry. Thanks.

"Fair enough, but now you've got two murderers you need to account for."

A lot more than that. Don't forget Mr. Brown who also killed, and many other murders that year.

"As I posted earlier, what are the chances that two Ripper-esque murders happen on the same night, within an hour of each other?"

What was ripper-esque about Liz's killing? And, again, only two miles west, same night, another woman died from a knife. What are the odds? (And, no offense, but whom CARES about probability theory?)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

litany

Hello Mike. Thanks.

"I also have to admit yours arguments make sense."

Thanks. And, right now, that is ALL I seek.

For my litany, I was going to include:

1. global warming

2. corporate greed

3. bullying

but I was interrupted. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

Sorry--know it to be nonsense.

You KNOW it to be nonsense? Now that's an admission.

Fair enough, but now you've got two murderers you need to account for.

1. He was bored.

2. He sought notoriety.

3. He was fearful.

4. He was envious.

How would you link those motivations to the murders?

Certainly not.

On what basis do you deny this?

Quite an admission.

Not at all. She's one of the "canonical five", isn't she?

Evidence? Or perhaps ad hoc, wishful thinking?

As I posted earlier, what are the chances that two Ripper-esque murders happen on the same night, within an hour of each other?

How about taking the path of least resistance here? For murders of this kind to happen within a small, localized area, over short period of time, it must have been the work of a single killer.

[mklhawley]

"Search your heart, Lynn. You know it to be true."

Sorry--know it to be nonsense.

Isn't this a case of 'groupers v. splitters' the world of academia must constantly face when dealing with patterns, Lynn? I have to admit my bias goes to the groupers, but I also have to admit yours arguments make sense.

"I'm all ears."

1. He was bored.

2. He sought notoriety.

3. He was fearful.

4. He was envious.

Don't forget anger and hatred; my favorites.

". . .who was murder-interruptus."

Evidence? Or perhaps ad hoc, wishful thinking?

Now, that fits all of us. Natasha's idea seems to fit into the 'medical maniac' category, as well, and that would take into account a nasty serial motive.

Sincerely,

Mike