My theory on Kosminski

[John G]

Thanks. I'll ask Tom. I've read his books, but that information must have bypassed me. As far as I was aware, it was a political club, anarchists and socialists, who met for political discussions and lectures, not a mens' drinking club.

Hi Paul,

"Of all the club members who figure in the Ripper investigation, it is ...Philip Krantz, who stands as the club elder at the ripe old age of 29 in 1888. All of the members appear under thirty, with many in their teens." (Westcott, 2017).

Tom doesn't say it was a "drinking club". He states it "was a collection of young, angry men, who had turned their backs on religion, and wanted to bring down the establishment by any means necessary." (ibid) He does, however, add that beer was served at the club.

[Pontius2000]

Thanks. I'll ask Tom. I've read his books, but that information must have bypassed me. As far as I was aware, it was a political club, anarchists and socialists, who met for political discussions and lectures, not a mens' drinking club.

According to his book, they were "technically" a political club, but in actual function were as much a social/drinking club for young Jewish males than anything else.

[PaulB]

Tom Wescott's book. You'd have to ask him his sources. But I believe he states that the actual club membership was fairly small and ranged in age from 17-29. He named the oldest member, Morris Eagle maybe? He also stated the club had someone posted outside soliciting new potential members to come in and drink. So it's very possible that JtR was invited in off the streets that night for some alcohol, which got him into the killing mode, which led to Stride's murder.

Thanks. I'll ask Tom. I've read his books, but that information must have bypassed me. As far as I was aware, it was a political club, anarchists and socialists, who met for political discussions and lectures, not a mens' drinking club.

[Pontius2000]

As a matter of interest, what's your source for saying the oldest club member was 29, that most of the 100 people there that night weren't members, and that the 100 people there were drinking?

Thanks
Paul

Tom Wescott's book. You'd have to ask him his sources. But I believe he states that the actual club membership was fairly small and ranged in age from 17-29. He named the oldest member, Morris Eagle maybe? He also stated the club had someone posted outside soliciting new potential members to come in and drink. So it's very possible that JtR was invited in off the streets that night for some alcohol, which got him into the killing mode, which led to Stride's murder.

[Sam Flynn]

that is not to say that an organised killer would not disfigure a face - that has happened many a time

Indeed so, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Yes, of course, although I think Kelly suggests a much more frenzied, disorganized, personal and unskilled type of murder than is the case w0tg the earlier victims.

Of course, that in itself doesn't prove that Kelly was murdered by a different killer, as you could argue that the perpetrator lost control because he was, say, highly intoxicated, suffering from a declining mental state or that Kelly said or did something that enraged him.

Kelly and Chapman both had their abdominal walls removed in large panes. Anybody who thinks that points to anything but the same killer, hands up now, please.

[John G]

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 ids 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 need saying that my contention is that he did not need to damage allfaces 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.

Perhaps. Although, of course, that is just one of a 1001 possible alternative explanations.

Okay... perhaps not quite that many!

[Fisherman]

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?

The distinctions are old and not much in use anymore - but the book John quoted from used them, and so it needed elaborating on.

I think there is a distinctive difference, but that is not to say that an organised killer would not disfigure a face - that has happened many a time, and has many a time been tied to an aquaintance between killer and victim.

Disorganized killers, though, would be more likely to attack parts of the body for more irrational reasons, or at least thatīs how I see it. To my mind, I would expect a lot more "irrational" damage to be found on victims killed by disorganized offenders.

[John G]

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

Yes, of course, although I think Kelly suggests a much more frenzied, disorganized, personal and unskilled type of murder than is the case w0tg the earlier victims.

Of course, that in itself doesn't prove that Kelly was murdered by a different killer, as you could argue that the perpetrator lost control because he was, say, highly intoxicated, suffering from a declining mental state or that Kelly said or did something that enraged him.

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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?