Kates Cuts

[Michael W Richards]

Letīs set you straight directly here:

What is "bleeding obvious" to some people is less so to others - that is the nature of things. Besides, many serial killers have not lived where they perpetrated their crimes, so there is nothing bleeeding obvious to see here.

My favourite suspect is not a suspect for every unsolved murder in the East End of the 1880:s, Iīm afraid. He is a suspect for every unsolved murder involving mutilations and eviscerations (and that takes us back into the 1870:s too, mind you), and that is because mutilators and eviscerators are rarer than a useful comment from you these days. I have him down for a round dozen murders, just about, give or take a few. That would not even put him in the top 100 when it comes to number of victims, so hinting at it being very strange if he killed numerous victims is simply wrong. Killing a dozen victims, probably prostitutes most or all of them, is middle of the road, sadly.

And of course, he lived directly adjacent to what is described as the murder area out here, and passed through that area on a daily basis. He has more proven opportunity and is a better geographical fit than any other suspect suggested, so whaddayouknow - you got that wrong too.

The four Stooges you have down for the canonical five murders would be a much, much rarer thing than a common evisceration killer. Then again, you donīt care much about the realities of these things, do you? Itīs all about nose cutting mafias, deluded sheep butchers and personal deeds for you, is it not? Of course, it may be that I am wrong about that - itīs just that it seems so bleeding obvious...

Goodnight, Michael.

So, youve presumed 12 people by your one suspect because you believe mutilators are that scarce? When knives were by far the easiest weapon to obtain and the most frequently used in crimes involving weapons at that time? You also know of the many, many men in that area with either the known mental illness or known violent tendencies that might have been involved in one or more murders at the time, and you know that there are lots we don't know about at all. In the most violent crime ridden section of the modern world. Living "adjacent" to the crime area is outside the immediate area, so Im not wrong at all. You know he almost certainly had someplace very close to the murder sites he was actually involved with, and that's the immediate area. He got off the streets quickly. And apparently very effectively, since we don't have any reasonable suggestion that he was seen leaving any site.

What you've done is make up your mind about a profile for the killer and then try and explain the inconsistencies away using that profile. A guy who strangles, cuts, saws, eviscerates, skins, disarticulates,...Im sure he has bad table manners too. But that's just an opinion, yours, and one formed because you try and fit the murders with a murderer profile. As I said, and its indisputable, none of even just the Five Canonicals have an established by hard evidence link to each other or a link by their respective killer(s). You've taken sand and built your castle on it...so don't chastise others when they are seeking more solid foundations.

[Leather_Apron]

Thanks JeffHamm for that awesome response to my confusion.. Now that I think about it I suppose in a way JTR did choose the locations by choosing the victims themselves. Even in the case of Eddowes whom I suspect was a spur of the moment pick-up JTR was using his knowledge of the most vulnerable(Women) and "quickfix" locations. I would surmise JTR lived in a Doss house similar to his victims so those are the most likely places to begin your search. If JTR lived anywhere else beyond spitalfields then I feel it most likely he was making some sort of demented statement(Highly unlikely). If he were married then I suspect his wife or family would have played a part in his demise.

[Leather_Apron]

I on the other hand believe that very little has changed.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
I dont believe you can compare modern day serial killings with the Whitrechapel murders. So much has changed in the past 131 years which make them incomparable.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I agree that might be the case, but in the end it's an empirical question because it also might be perfectly suited to them as well - we don't know (and I don't claim that we do, though I haven't emphasized that point enough, so thanks for bringing it up). I've tried to find older, solved, cases, but it's hard to track down the maps, even when a case can be found. There are cases from the 1920s and 40s to be found, but unfortunately the ones where there is details that I can use are typically the unsolved ones (The Phantom Killer, for example), so as with JtR, we can't know if the analysis is producing as reliable an output as for modern day offenses, which is of course the data from which the routines are derived. I did have a look at the Phantom Killer case, and the prime suspect (Youell Swinney) was reported as being in a particular park with his wife (she's the one who testified), and she said he left the car they were in and was gone for over an hour, and this corresponded to the time of one of the murders near that location. The profile puts the park in zone 1 and 2, with the section where the entrace, and presumably parking lot, in the zone 2 portion. However, that's not a time pre-automobile, and it was never proven Swinney was the Phantom Killer. It is, however, interesting that the prime suspect was known to frequent the park which is in the high probability area.

The underlying theory that drives these analyses is pretty basic human behaviour (risk avoidance, efficiency of travel, etc, all described in mathematical terms), but it's whether or not the parameters that best fit modern offenders are the ones best suited for a Victorian era crime that needs to be determined. It would be nice to have a dozen or more cases from the 1800s to test out, but it would be nice to have a pony too.

At the moment, we don't have any evidence that the profiles wouldn't be accurate, but we also don't have any evidence to show they are either - because the question, while raised, hasn't been tested to determine the answer.

So again, as I say, these are for a "hmmmm, interesting" type thing, and should not be taken as evidence. And no suspect should be dismissed based upon the profile alone.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

I think there needs to be some distinction between someone who makes a conscious choice and then makes that choice a reality, and someone who is content with the choices his prey will make. In the case of the only 2 women we know were soliciting when they meet their killer, he likely posed as a client and knew that would enable him to be led to somewhere dark and semi private to do his thing. In Pollys case, I think his first time at this, he became too anxious, maybe she demurred and he kept trying to get her to pick him up...and finally he gave up trying his act and attacked while still on the street. He didn't get to fully realize his dream of the abdominal mutilating he desired as a result. He discovered he liked this...he does it again within 10 days, but this time he may have asked Annie to take him somewhere more agreeable to fulfill his needs, or maybe he was just led there fortunately. In either case I don't think this venue aspect was a conscious choice made and then realized by the killer.

Did Strides killer follow her with intentions of killing her? Did he, on the spur of the moment, make that a choice? Did Kates killer pick her up, or get picked up by her, with the intention of killing her in the square? Did Marys killer come to her room to kill her because she was at home,.. did he follow her home? Choice may not always be a factor in where all the women are killed. Chance may be.

[Fisherman]

So, youve presumed 12 people by your one suspect because you believe mutilators are that scarce? When knives were by far the easiest weapon to obtain and the most frequently used in crimes involving weapons at that time?

Yes, Michael, exactly so. You are welcome to produce all the other mutilators and eviscerators you are familiar with from the time and place, and we can have a go at sorting out which of them is the likeliest killer in the different cases. Of course, nicking a thumb or something like that will not count - I want killes who are into cutting their victims open and who enjoy procuring innards.
Letīs start the counting now!

You also know of the many, many men in that area with either the known mental illness or known violent tendencies that might have been involved in one or more murders at the time, and you know that there are lots we don't know about at all.

Mental illness does not an eviscerator make, Iīm afraid. Letīs be specific here. Itīs not as if anybody with mental issues go out cutting people up in the open streets.

In the most violent crime ridden section of the modern world.

Yes, Michael, in the Whitechapel slum. Where are your identified mutilators and eviscerators in that crime infested area and time? Can you name one single such man?

Living "adjacent" to the crime area is outside the immediate area, so Im not wrong at all.

You are not wrong about Lechmere living outside the immediate area. But once you try to claim that this exonerates him as the possible killer, THEN you are massively wrong.

You know he almost certainly had someplace very close to the murder sites he was actually involved with, and that's the immediate area.

No, I donīt know anything of that at all. If he had a bolthole in the area, he had to make long walks from more than one murder site. And walking ten minutes is not much easier than walking twenty. Itīs all about his appearance after the murders. If he was bathing in blood and running his feet off, he would get caught. If he had no visible blood on his person and acted calmly - and had a reason to be on the streets, not least! - he could walk from Bow to the Wandle and noone would be any the wiser.
You overdramatize. He was almost certainly seen by many people, both en route to the murder sites and after the murders.

He got off the streets quickly.

Like after killing Stride? And as evinced by how the rag in Goulston Street ended up there a long time after the killing?

And apparently very effectively, since we don't have any reasonable suggestion that he was seen leaving any site.

Effectively, how? Did he wear a robe that made him invisible? Did he fly? Or did he just walk away, cool as a cucumber, rousing no suspicion at all, the way a carman on his way to work would not do? The way a baker en route to the bakery would not do? The way any working man would not do, provided he walked calmly away, perhaps greeting his fellow working men with a "Good morning!" as he went?
You know, I find that a lot likelier than any idea that he had invented a revolutionary new method to stay unseen.


What you've done is make up your mind about a profile for the killer and then try and explain the inconsistencies away using that profile.

What you do is to lie, Iīm afraid. I have done it the other way around. I have noted the similarities and I have made the call that they are too many and too odd not to be connected.

A guy who strangles, cuts, saws, eviscerates, skins, disarticulates,...Im sure he has bad table manners too.

The cutting, sawing, eviscerating, skinning and disarticulating are all parts of the same overall matter of taking a body apart.
Many killers have done these kinds of things, but you seem unaware of it? Have you seen what Gillis, Dahmer, Cottingham etcetera did to their victims?
Are you living on a planet where people who use knives do not use saws? Where people who skin will not disarticulate? Where those who strangle cannot be mutilators?
Try and find a ticket for the next space shuttle to another planet if that is the case.

But that's just an opinion, yours, and one formed because you try and fit the murders with a murderer profile.

It is not just my opinion, no. Others agree that a link seems very obvious. Nor was I the one first suggesting this. Richard Whittington-Egan, for example, did so. And many others have held the same view. You may take my word for it: they are not getting fewer. Once the ban was lifted to speak of a combined killer, this issue is only going one way. And far from me being alone in my thinking, Iīd say you are headed for that particular station yourself. Dated, illogical, uninformed, unhistorical and unwilling to learn never cut the mustard.
So, anyway, you were wrong on that score.
And of course, you are even more wrong in your unsavory suggestion about why I reason the way I do. I do not HAVE to "fit the murders" with a murderer profile - they SUGGEST a single killer on account of the many similarities. It is simple and basic police methodology, chapter one: it people are killed in the same area and time and if they have the same odd and curious damage done to their bodies, then the killer is more than liklely the same one.

As I said, and its indisputable, none of even just the Five Canonicals have an established by hard evidence link to each other or a link by their respective killer(s). You've taken sand and built your castle on it...so don't chastise others when they are seeking more solid foundations.

Tell me why I would not haul you over the coals, Michael? Because you say so nice things about me? Actually, you can say what you want, and it wonīt change things a bit. Itīs jestering and lying or the facts, and I choose the facts.

[Michael W Richards]

Tell me why I would not haul you over the coals, Michael? Because you say so nice things about me? Actually, you can say what you want, and it wonīt change things a bit. Itīs jestering and lying or the facts, and I choose the facts.

Fisherman, Ive been on here as long as you, and Ive always enjoyed sparring with you. I think you may have lost some lightheartedness over time, I suppose I have too, but its never been a like-don't like thing. Its been a disagreement.

[Abby Normal]

Tell me why I would not haul you over the coals, Michael? Because you say so nice things about me? Actually, you can say what you want, and it wonīt change things a bit. Itīs jestering and lying or the facts, and I choose the facts.

post of the year fish. well done.

to add-both the ripper series and torso series end at the same time. Tottenham face mutilated like eddowes. these two facts along with all the other similarities overwhelmingly point to the same man. if these crimes happened today, im sure the police would be looking at them as connected, at the very least much more than they did back then.

[Michael W Richards]

Let me just add that citing serial killer stats, from known modern killers who have been identified as such and linked directly with a series of violent crimes, and interviewed....is really irrelevant when discussing these murders. Because we cant even link 1 with a 2nd, let alone a series. Ergo, there is no serial killer here unless someone can prove one man killed more than 1 victim.

[Fiver]

And in the Kelly case we have ample evidence to suggest the killer knew the victim, in this case, rather intimately.

We know that Kelly let her killer in. That level of trust might mean that Kelly know her killer, but it could also mean her killer looked and acted respectable enough that Kelly could not envision him planning to kill her.

[Abby Normal]

We know that Kelly let her killer in. That level of trust might mean that Kelly know her killer, but it could also mean her killer looked and acted respectable enough that Kelly could not envision him planning to kill her.

hi Fiver
I think Kelly probably knew her killer and vice versus, but I don't think we can assert that she let him in (although I think she probably did-either blotchy or someone later). theres also the chance that he knew about the hand through the window trick to unlock the door and snuck in when she was passed out, but again that would point to her and him knowing each other.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, Ive been on here as long as you, and Ive always enjoyed sparring with you. I think you may have lost some lightheartedness over time, I suppose I have too, but its never been a like-don't like thing. Its been a disagreement.

And disagreements are fine! However, when you claim that I am fitting the evidence to suit my suspect - or ANYTHING along those lines - you are lining yourself up for some heavy artillery, Michael.
I have not "lost some lightheartedness" over time, I have had it taken away from me. Donīt get me wrong, I am not whining about it, and I always knew that would happen when I opted for a suspect. In the end, it is all worthwhile if you feel you are correct. And boy, do I feel that! In such a situation, to have it claimed that I dabble with the evidence, that I misinform experts, that I lie, that I cheat, that I would go to any length to peddle my views is a sad thing - but it seems it will always resort to such things when the people out here cannot dismantle a theory.

[JeffHamm]

Let me just add that citing serial killer stats, from known modern killers who have been identified as such and linked directly with a series of violent crimes, and interviewed....is really irrelevant when discussing these murders. Because we cant even link 1 with a 2nd, let alone a series. Ergo, there is no serial killer here unless someone can prove one man killed more than 1 victim.

Well, you are free to ignore the stats, but your opinion that that we can't link even two of the murders is not shared by many and places you at one extreme end of a continuum that spans from "can't link even 2" all the way up to those who link not only all of the C5, but some of the "possibles" (i.e. Tabram, etc), and onwards to those who include the torso murders as well. And for those who favor Chapman as their suspect, they're linking a series of poisonings, etc.

There is a lot of evidence and very good arguments to link Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, and while there are some counter-arguments, they do not appear to have been convincing to anybody who does not already have a particular suspect in mind and where that case becomes stronger if one (or more) of those four are excluded.

A case can be made to consider Stride, but it's far weaker, and far more open to debate with very good points on both sides, to the point it appears to me that the safest and only conclusion we can make is "we don't know". To the extent that further arguments depend upon Stride's inclusion or exclusion, they become 50/50, but if inferences can be drawn regardless of whether or not Stride is included, then those lines of reasoning are on firmer grounds.

I've included Stride in this simply because the C5 are generally of interest to the widest set of people. If we exclude Stride, zone 1 shifts a few blocks north east, to roughly half way between Kelly and Chapman (so roughly 225 yards), though just slightly above the line that connects those two locations. The area of the Times article on the 2nd shifts from zone 3 to 5, which is still of interest, and the intersection of Commercial and Hanbury becomes a higher point of interest as well. The second area in the south east vanishes. So while the specifics are, not surprisingly, influenced by the data inputted, the general pattern is for interest in and around the north west region of the offense locations.

Now, whether that represents his bolt hole (area of residence) or a commuter's entry/exit point to the area, are both possibilities worthy of exploration. If the GSG was deposited after JtR had returned to his residence, then the former is the more likely.

You don't have to concern yourself with these though if you think none of the offenses are linked other than Nichols and Chapman. There's not a lot one can do with only two offense locations in terms of spatial pattern analysis because two points don't make much of a pattern to analyse after all. Also, I want to re-iterate, this type of analysis is only about probabilities, and whether or not the underlying weights in the calculations are the best ones for a Victorian era series has not been tested. They may be, but they may not be as well, we don't know. I offer these for people's interest, but I do so with all caveats in place and, I hope, clearly stated. If they don't interest you, no problem, ignore them. Who knows, you might be right to do so, but then, you might not be too. I certainly don't profess to know the answer to that.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Let me just add that citing serial killer stats, from known modern killers who have been identified as such and linked directly with a series of violent crimes, and interviewed....is really irrelevant when discussing these murders. Because we cant even link 1 with a 2nd, let alone a series. Ergo, there is no serial killer here unless someone can prove one man killed more than 1 victim.

No, it is not irrelevant at all. The driving forces will be the same, the ways of killing certainly are very much the same when we look at evisceration and mutilation murders and the probems detecting the crimes are also the exact same, on account of how these killers are almost invariably killers of strangers.

And we CAN link these cases, by way of looking at what happened to the victims. Having the belly ripped open from sternum to groin in two or more cases is a link, having the abdominal flesh cut away in two or more cases is a link and so on. It is how the police work, and it is also the way they SHOULD work, because links like these ones will almost invariably give away a common perpetrator.
There are many, many series of killings perpetrated by serial killers who were a lot less specific in what they did to their victims, but they were nevertheless speculated by the police to be serilists long before they were caught. And it is not as if their murders were deeds by various people UNTIL they were caught. These kinds of killings make the police postulate that they are dealing with a serial killer, and that assumption is typically proven some way down the line.

Take Peter Sutcliffe, for example - why do you think the police opted for the idea of many deeds but just the one killer? Why did they do so in the Golden State killer case? Why did they accept it in the Gillis case?
Because there were indications that told them that the perp was one and the same: the hammerblows and stabbing in Sutcliffes case, the mutilations in Gillisī case and the manner of finding blunt objects to whak people, mostly couples, over the head in the Golden State killer case.
None of these men produced matters as rare as the cutting away of the abdominal flesh, for example. They were all less rare than the Ripper/Torso killer, but they were clearly specific enough to make the police certiain aboutn a single killer - and that certainty was proven in each case.
Does it take as odd and rare murders as these for the police to speculate about a serial killer? Certainly not - if we have a series of people who are shot (an EXTREMELY ordinary way of killing) out in the open street, the same thing will happen - as in the Son of Sam case. If we have people strangled (the commonest way of killing of them all in sexual murders), the same thing will happen - as in the Boston Strangler case. Itīs all about sudden explosions of murder cases in the same general area - when that happens, and when the method of dispatching the victims is the same, there will always be an assumption of a serial killer on the loose.

Can you give me one good reason why the same assumption should not be made when we have murders involving the taking of organs, sexual and non-sexual, the cutting away of abdominal flesh, cutting the belly open from ribs to pubes, prostituted victims, knife murders, silent deeds, no torture etcetera, etcetera? How much are you asking for before you admit the obvious fact that these murders must be connected?

[Michael W Richards]

We know that Kelly let her killer in. That level of trust might mean that Kelly know her killer, but it could also mean her killer looked and acted respectable enough that Kelly could not envision him planning to kill her.

The main problem with that is that we have no records of Mary ever taking strange men into that room...other than Blotchy of course. But she was heard singing for over and hour off and on with Blotchy there, so not a traditional trick by any means. Mary had only had the room to herself since the Tuesday night of that last week, when Maria moved out. So...that leaves us with 1 night (Wed) she had it to "entertain" men if she had those intentions, and we have no record she was seen with anyone other than Daniel Barnett, while out for drinks. We know what happens Thursday night.

Who the other "Joe" she was seeing is a really big question...because love triangles gone wrong would certainly be a more commonly seen Motive for murder, more common that a mad serial killer killing at random anyway.