My theory on Kosminski

[John G]

Actually, it appears that facial disfigurement occurs in around 19% of murder crime scenes, so probably not that uncommon: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...murder&f=false

[Elamarna]

This will sound like splitting hairs, but its not so much the bald fact that Kosminski was docile after incarceration, but, rather, the fact that the administrative staff treated him as docile. Recall that Robert Anderson wants us to believe that Kosminski was positively identified as the man who murdered 5 or 6 women, cut one of them to ribbons, removed organs, etc, but lo, instead of being carted off to Broadmoor, by all appearances he was treated as a 'typical' lunatic--with not a peep out of his medical attendants that they had a dangerous menace under their care. (I refer to the case notes). Do you see the distinction? If you accept this, then you must also accept the utterly unfathomable conclusion that Anderson and Swanson kept the evidence of Kosminski's 'true nature' (that he was the Ripper) from his warders. I find that incredible.

You need to allow for the fact that the case notes are very sparse, there are very large gaps. In addition one early surviving reports state he attacked an addendent, so he certainly was NOT docile.

There is also the real possability that if they did believe him to be the killer and the attendants were informed, such a story would leak to the press, maybe the last thing the police wanted. It maybe only the man at the top was informed on a strictly need to know basis.




Steve

[Fisherman]

Actually, it appears that facial disfigurement occurs in around 19% of murder crime scenes, so probably not that uncommon: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...murder&f=false

It appears the numbers you mention here apply to disorganised offenders victims only, John.
Overall, I think the police will always consider the possibility of an aquaintance if the face has been intentionally disfigured. And wisely so.

As for the Ripper, I think there was another parameter altogether at play. I donīt think he was aquainted to any of his victims, but instead a killer of strangers. He had the same reason for cutting faces as he had for taking away the abdominal wall if I am not very much mistaken.

[Abby Normal]

The GSG becomes, imo, much more likely to have been written by JtR when we understand better what it was. When we think of "graffiti" we ususually think of big sprawling writing or art on a wall. That is NOT what the GSG was. The wall where it was written was a white wall, with only the bottom 4 feet or so being painted black. The "graffiti" was written on this black portion of the wall, apparently directly over where he dropped Eddowes' apron. The letters of the graffiti were approximately 1 inch tall. So rather than big sprawling "graffiti", the more accurate description would be a small written "note" in chalk.

bingo!

[Elamarna]

It appears the numbers you mention here apply to disorganised offenders victims only, John.
Overall, I think the police will always consider the possibility of an aquaintance if the face has been intentionally disfigured. And wisely so.

As for the Ripper, I think there was another parameter altogether at play. I donīt think he was aquainted to any of his victims, but instead a killer of strangers.

Hey Christer, it so nice when we agree, even if it's for different reasons.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

the apparent misspelling of the word jews in the GSG has never made an impression on me either way. It could be anything from a simple spelling error, to being misread to intentionally misspelt.

If anything the latter perhaps because it was a back handed insult to jews.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi stead
just one thing-the soldier could have been the ripper. something that seems to be lost here on casebook over the years ive noticed.

That's a good point Abby. The thinking tends to be: was she killed by the ripper or possibly the soldier that she was said to have been with? Why couldn't they have been one and the same

[Abby Normal]

That's a good point Abby. The thinking tends to be: was she killed by the ripper or possibly the soldier that she was said to have been with? Why couldn't they have been one and the same

exactly. and Many serial killers have a military background.

[John G]

It appears the numbers you mention here apply to disorganised offenders victims only, John.
Overall, I think the police will always consider the possibility of an aquaintance if the face has been intentionally disfigured. And wisely so.

As for the Ripper, I think there was another parameter altogether at play. I donīt think he was aquainted to any of his victims, but instead a killer of strangers. He had the same reason for cutting faces as he had for taking away the abdominal wall if I am not very much mistaken.

Hi Fish,

As I see it the problem with relying on connections is that you could argue that they rule victims out as much as they rule victims in.

Thus, facial disfigurement. That only applied to two victims, and one of those cases was fairly slight. Therefore, on that basis you could argue that those two were part of a series and everyone else was murdered by a different perpetrator.

Abdominal wall removal? Only applies to three victims and as you know I believe there were three different motivations. Even if I'm wrong, you could equally argue that it rules out all other victims as much as you could argue it rules in those victims. Personally, I think an holistic approach is required, I.e. far more factors need to be considered.

You might be right about the 19% figure applying only to victims of disorganised killers, however, this is still a far higher figure than I would have expected.

And, of course, it suggests that Kelly's murderer was disorganised, whereas I think it could at least be argued that the person(s) responsible for the other C5 was generally organized.

I also think that JtR, assuming he existed, targeted strangers, I.e. he was an opportunist. However, Kelly is perhaps an outlier, particularly considering the facial disfigurement, the fact that she was murdered in her own room, and because she may well have been asleep when attacked. And, in her case at least, I certainly wouldn't rule out John McCarthy, if only because of the subsequent Austin murder.

[Sam Flynn]

It appears the numbers you mention here apply to disorganised offenders victims only, John.

Would it really make much difference? I don't see this "organised/disorganised" distinction as much more than a pair of descriptive labels, and I'm not sure how much predictive value they have. Why shouldn't an "organised" killer mutilate a face, anyway?

[PaulB]

You need to allow for the fact that the case notes are very sparse, there are very large gaps. In addition one early surviving reports state he attacked an addendent, so he certainly was NOT docile.

There is also the real possability that if they did believe him to be the killer and the attendants were informed, such a story would leak to the press, maybe the last thing the police wanted. It maybe only the man at the top was informed on a strictly need to know basis.

Steve

The "case notes" are periodic notes concerning his physical health. They make very little mention of his behaviour, his mental condition, how his hallucinations manifested themselves, or anything he said. Whether or not they would have reflected anything the asylum authorities were told by the police is therefore moot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

exactly. and Many serial killers have a military background.

Maybe the ripper was suffering mental problems due to things he'd seen and done during active service? Wasn't Gary Barnett's possible suspect Fogerty an ex-military man?

[Elamarna]

The "case notes" are periodic notes concerning his physical health. They make very little mention of his behaviour, his mental condition, how his hallucinations manifested themselves, or anything he said. Whether or not they would have reflected anything the asylum authorities were told by the police is therefore moot.

Agreed, you always make the point far better Paul


Steve

[GUT]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that where facial disfigurement is a factor the victim is almost always known to the perpetrator. Do you know if any research has been done in this area?

There’s been tons of research.

Unfortunately as with all such issues there is always an exception.

And if you accept even the C4 we start to see facial mutilations, so an escalation can’t be totally ruled out

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

As I see it the problem with relying on connections is that you could argue that they rule victims out as much as they rule victims in.

Thus, facial disfigurement. That only applied to two victims, and one of those cases was fairly slight. Therefore, on that basis you could argue that those two were part of a series and everyone else was murdered by a different perpetrator.

Abdominal wall removal? Only applies to three victims and as you know I believe there were three different motivations. Even if I'm wrong, you could equally argue that it rules out all other victims as much as you could argue it rules in those victims. Personally, I think an holistic approach is required, I.e. far more factors need to be considered.

You might be right about the 19% figure applying only to victims of disorganised killers, however, this is still a far higher figure than I would have expected.

And, of course, it suggests that Kelly's murderer was disorganised, whereas I think it could at least be argued that the person(s) responsible for the other C5 was generally organized.

I also think that JtR, assuming he existed, targeted strangers, I.e. he was an opportunist. However, Kelly is perhaps an outlier, particularly considering the facial disfigurement, the fact that she was murdered in her own room, and because she may well have been asleep when attacked. And, in her case at least, I certainly wouldn't rule out John McCarthy, if only because of the subsequent Austin murder.

Well, John, itīs not me who is either right or wrong about the 19 per cent figure, itīs the author of the book you quoted from.

What I am saying about the facial damage and the abdominal flaps is that my understanding is that they are both exponents of the same inspiration ground. Nothing else. And consequentially, neither of them were tied to any personal aquaintance on behalf of the killer visavi any of the victims.

It also needs saying that my contention is that he did not need to damage all faces or take away the abdomen in flaps from all his victims. These things were just colours on a large palette he used, if I am correct. And then we must add to this that there were external factors that may have made a lot of difference. Maybe we would have had found Nichols with a cut face and a removed abdominal wall if the time was there - but it seems it was not.