Is Eddowes demise the key?

[L A Lester]

Good points on the profile article.

Hi Curious - believe Dr Forbes Winslow (augh!!) was the first to push the one man theory for the double event during his interview with Central News (Morning Star 2Oct1888 pg 2). We know what a crackpot he was so anyone who takes that view has to wipe his stink off first.

Hope this helps! Linda

[Henry Flower]

Thanks Linda - there was much in the profile that was interesting - and in truth I don't disagree with its arguments. Cheers for sharing it.

"wipe his stink off first" - a lovely turn of phrase! hehe

[caz]

Oh for the love of Christ. I don't know why this is so hard. I don't have the slightest idea who killed Liz Stride. And for the record, NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER. We have guesses, speculations, we don't know. That being said, the entire point of this whole mishugas was to say that it is not ludicrous to see other hands in some of these murders. Not that there were other hands, not that there weren't, but that there are legitimate reasons to question whether or not Jack killed all 5 of these women. Just because I can see the argument for a different killer doesn't mean I believe there was one. There is a tendency for those confronted with an argument for a different killer of one or more of these women to say "No that's stupid." It's not stupid. It is a different opinion because someone concentrates on different elements of the crime.

For the record: The only person I have stated that I actually think was killed by someone else is Mary Kelly. And I've explained why. I don't know who killed Liz Stride. The timing is seductive, but not necessarily significant, and her throat wound is quite a bit different. I can see an argument for her not being a victim of the Ripper. But because she was not mutilated the way the others were, there is very little to compare to the other crimes. My argument is to take her out of the equation. The only thing we can learn from her death is that IF she was killed by the Ripper, then that MAY have triggered him to kill again immediately. So since we all know that, it seems that putting her murder aside and looking at the picture without her in it is a more realistic way to get a picture of the killer. The details of her murder are far more filled with assumptions than facts. If you have to build a theory on five or six assumptions that cannot be proven and have valid alternate explanations, then it's not a very good theory is it?

I am perfectly happy for anyone to believe whatever they want to believe. I will believe what I choose to believe. It works out. But don't put words in my mouth and do not make assumptions because I agree with someone over a technicality. I can see the argument for more than one killer. That does not make me Tom, Lynn, or whoever else, and it doesn't mean I agree with them. It means I see the argument, and in this particular case, I think any dispassionate thinking person should see the argument as well. I don't care if you agree. But you really should be able to at least SEE it.

Blimey, Errata, how about the above for putting words in my mouth, thoughts in my head, and theories in my mind?

Nowhere have I called you 'stupid' for considering that one man may not have been responsible for every blinking knife murder that autumn, so pot kettle. Nowhere have I said it's a fact that Stride was another mutilation murder gone wrong. Nobody knows why Stride ended up with her throat cut, but those who have trouble seeing her as a victim of the Mitre Square killer (and I don't include you here unless you wish to be included) are faced with finding a motive and a suspect, while others (and I do include you here unless you wish to exclude yourself) sure as hell don't need the former and sure as hell already have the latter.

You do have a tendency to contradict yourself though, unless I am simply not understanding a good half of what you write. You said there would have been no doubts about Stride being connected with Eddowes if only she had been mutilated. I pointed out the obvious problem with this if you and others could have been so easily fooled by a copycat with a slash here and a slash there. You got all tetchy and said that nobody had tried to make a murder look like the ripper's work, and yet now you say you actually think Mary Kelly was killed by someone else - presumably someone who had been living in a cave, had no idea what the ripper had been up to and just happened to have a coincidental penchant for ripping up Spitalfields unfortunates and removing their innards. In short, certainly not his intention to imitate anyone.

The thing is, looking at the picture without Stride is not a very realistic way to get a picture of 'the killer' if there is any chance at all that Eddowes died as a consequence of what had just happened in Berner St. If you are also looking at the picture without MJK, I'm not sure how much you leave yourself to work with, and how it could not be a picture completely distorted out of true by all the missing murders that you said the killer of Nichols and Chapman no doubt committed.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Henry,

You expressed interest in genuine double eventers. I know of at least three, and you should be able to find most of the details by looking up Leigh Thornhill, Mark Dixie and of course, dear old Ted Bundy.

One significant departure from Stride and Eddowes, however, is that in all three of the above cases the first victim of the nights in question survived to tell the tale.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

Thank you Caz, much obliged. I'll look up the non-Bundys. Ted does my head in. He's so damn handsome, and I'm married. And heterosexual. But that grin...

Much obliged

[Abby Normal]

Thank you Caz, much obliged. I'll look up the non-Bundys. Ted does my head in. He's so damn handsome, and I'm married. And heterosexual. But that grin...

Much obliged

Ted does my head in. He's so damn handsome, and I'm married. And heterosexual. But that grin...

with all do respect Henry-yuck.

[Henry Flower]

Bundy

HiAbby,

I fear my sarcasm was a little too dry to be spotted - my fault entirely, and I apologise. Rest assured, I feel no admiration physical or mental for Ted Bundy. I was satirising the swooning over Bundy's 'roguish charm' that has popped up in way too many discussions of his crimes. I apologise if that wasn't obvious enough - and clearly it wasn't.

I really don't understand why killers such as Ted get love-letters by the thousands even after being found guilty, or why so many females in discussing his crimes still feel the need to comment on how sexy they find him. It baffles me and I find it repellent.

He was a brat, a narcissist, a coward, a bully, a child killer, and a vicious animal. And regardless of one's political views, it's hard not to feel that he got precisely what he deserved.

I'm sorry my comment was not more clear, and I hope you understand now there is no way it sprang from any admiration for that sadist. I would genuinely rather not read another word about Bundy as long as I live, because of this weird cult of personality that too many construct around him.

Apologies for any distaste I caused by my lack of clarity. I must remember in future that while sarcasm may sadly be my default setting, I do need to make it clearer when dealing with issues as serious as this. Or just keep my gob shut more often!

Henry

[caz]

Hi Henry,

I trust you understood that my 'dear old' was a tad sarcastic too. Bundy pops up far too often in my opinion as well, but if he can be dragged from his infernal resting place to give a bit of potential insight into other similarly minded barstewards, at least he is being made to do something useful.

Thornhill and Dixie are no more wholesome (or should that be no less unwholesome), and these nasty creatures are still alive and funded by the taxpayers.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

Absolutely, Caz.

[Abby Normal]

HiAbby,

I fear my sarcasm was a little too dry to be spotted - my fault entirely, and I apologise. Rest assured, I feel no admiration physical or mental for Ted Bundy. I was satirising the swooning over Bundy's 'roguish charm' that has popped up in way too many discussions of his crimes. I apologise if that wasn't obvious enough - and clearly it wasn't.

I really don't understand why killers such as Ted get love-letters by the thousands even after being found guilty, or why so many females in discussing his crimes still feel the need to comment on how sexy they find him. It baffles me and I find it repellent.

He was a brat, a narcissist, a coward, a bully, a child killer, and a vicious animal. And regardless of one's political views, it's hard not to feel that he got precisely what he deserved.

I'm sorry my comment was not more clear, and I hope you understand now there is no way it sprang from any admiration for that sadist. I would genuinely rather not read another word about Bundy as long as I live, because of this weird cult of personality that too many construct around him.

Apologies for any distaste I caused by my lack of clarity. I must remember in future that while sarcasm may sadly be my default setting, I do need to make it clearer when dealing with issues as serious as this. Or just keep my gob shut more often!

Henry

Hi Henry
Thanks for clearing that up! Sorry I misunderstood you-for a second there I thought you were serious about having a crush on that loser.

[Semper_Eadem]

In my humble opinion....

Hello all,

It was recently suggested to me that there seems to be a theory, given that many believe Elizabeth Stride to be a separate 'event' and the thought, in some people's minds, that "Mary Kelly"'s death way also be unconnected with the other murders in the C5, that the "key" to the door that would unlock some, if not the main part of the mystery of the Whitechapel murders lies in the demise of Catherine Eddowes. I have to say that I tend to agree with this train of thought. Are there any others who may agree, partially or entirely with this thought? (For obvious reasons, those who believe in the C5 being a one man murder spree would no doubt disagree entirely with this view.) What are your views?


Kindly

Phil

Hello Phil et Everyone,

I was thinking over Eddowes and Stride tonight while going to work. I'm pretty much a traditionalist in that I think JTR got spooked before he could get to work on Stride and took any frustration he had over not finishing with stride on mutilating Eddowes. But that leaves Kelly. Maybe the killer got worse as he went along. Yep that same old tired song. I think JTR was very aware of his surroundings as he mutilated these women and didn't want to get caught. Perhaps getting away with the killing was as important to JTR as the murders themselves and had a lot to do with his MO..

I think he started on someone who wasn't part of the C5, probably the first victim of JTR was a house cat up the road that JTR killed when he was 8. I think he made some sort of progression. I do know I have do a recap on Ada Wilson. She is interesting and might of been JTR first London/Whitechapel victim, although I think he might of pulled the same thing in another town. Especially, if he progressed in his violence, perhaps he struck a woman or knocked a woman down and kicked her and did some time in the local jail or paid a fine.

Bah I said pretty much the same thing on the JTR Forums when I posted there. Yes, I am definitely singing the same old song. Still its a lively tune and lets you all know my pretty basic opinion. JTR got spooked with Stride and took it out on Eddowes and decied he liked thrill of going totally bonkers with the mutalations and then he found Kelly with her room.

[curious]

JTR got spooked with Stride and took it out on Eddowes and decied he liked thrill of going totally bonkers with the mutalations and then he found Kelly with her room.

And then what?

[KatBradshaw]

That is the 64,000 dollar question!

[Semper_Eadem]

And then what?

I think after Kelly the killer's mind snapped and he went raving mad so the cops took him away in the paddy wagon. I'll admit I might be wrong but this fits.

[Errata]

I think after Kelly the killer's mind snapped and he went raving mad so the cops took him away in the paddy wagon. I'll admit I might be wrong but this fits.

The brain doesn't work that way unless the problem is physiological. First of all, people never really "snap". The delusions, hallucinations, sociopathy, whatever was there for a while. And there are behavioral changes during that time. Irritability, hyper vigilance, changes in habit, etc. It's when something happens of significance to the killer that triggers killing. But even if they devolve into a totally uncontrolled killer, they aren't going more mad. Even if a person is severely deluded and having hallucinations, he will never do something to another person on purpose that he cannot handle. Whoever killed Kelly was morally and psychologically fine with what he was doing. At best he would be horrified to find out that he did that to someone who was not who he thought it was, for example if he was deluded into believing that she was his wife or something. But not by what he did. And even if he was horrified to find out that he did that to a stranger instead of his intended target, it would be quickly rationalized. These people kill and mutilate because they want to. They rationalize a reason, and the reason may even be the stressor that prompted them to kill in the first place. But clearly there are ways to deal with a cheating wife or an abusive mother that don't involve harming people. They want to do what they are doing. It gives them pleasure, it gives them the illusion of power and control. That's all they care about. The rest is window dressing. Kelly's killer didn't "snap". What he did didn't drive him mad. If he got worse, it was completely unrelated to his crimes.