Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kates Cuts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    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 Gillis´ 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. It´s 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?
    Ill try and be more brief this time Fisherman....if you look at the specifics of the first 2 murders there is really a finite amount of activity that is present in both murders. The targets were acquired the same way, they were very similar physically, and they both were killed based on the opportunity that was created, at least in 1 case, by the victim herself. And in both cases the women were on their backs, legs spread, with varying insults to their abdomens. They match. We don't need to cite modern exmples of serial crime to see that, but you do seem to need those when you decide to add acts by the same killer that are not present in any way with those 2 murders. Yeah, modern serial killers kill with strangulation, then hammers, then knives or by whatever means are easiest for him/her. They have distinct disadvantage to the Ripper, because forensics and CCTV has changed the way crime is investigated. Some killers admit to changing their routine or methods if only to misdirect the investigations, not because they wanted to kill differently. These crimes predate those kinds of investigative tools. No CCTV, no means of signaling other law enforcement other than by foot or with a whistle, no fingerprinting, no blood screening, no physical evidence being scientifically analyzed. Hell, they couldn't even tell whether the Lusk kidney was human, female or precisely when it was taken from a body.

    There was no reason to change, no indication by those murders that change was likely, and no need to misdirect the authorities by killing in another manner. They had no idea who he was, we just can see what he did, and by that, what he wanted. I don't see any evidence that the same man even thought of disarticulation, dismemberment or any other vile activity other than what he chose to do twice within 2 weeks time.

    You can use any serial killers history to try and show that modern serial killers can change their habits when killing, but you haven't yet established that this killer of Polly and Annie showed us any evidence all that he wanted to do anything other than exactly what he did do to them.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

      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
      Jeff,

      If youre disputing that the Canonical Group is made from anything but presumptions and opinions, then we will never agree. Its guesswork, not science, not based on the existing evidence. The existing evidence alone would have to exclude at least 1 Canonical from that group immediately.

      People choose this position, its not that they are compelled by the evidence to accept it. I choose to match the very similar square pegs with the square slots and "presume" that round pegs must belong elsewhere. Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate are square pegs.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        Ill try and be more brief this time Fisherman....if you look at the specifics of the first 2 murders there is really a finite amount of activity that is present in both murders. The targets were acquired the same way, they were very similar physically, and they both were killed based on the opportunity that was created, at least in 1 case, by the victim herself. And in both cases the women were on their backs, legs spread, with varying insults to their abdomens. They match. We don't need to cite modern exmples of serial crime to see that, but you do seem to need those when you decide to add acts by the same killer that are not present in any way with those 2 murders. Yeah, modern serial killers kill with strangulation, then hammers, then knives or by whatever means are easiest for him/her. They have distinct disadvantage to the Ripper, because forensics and CCTV has changed the way crime is investigated. Some killers admit to changing their routine or methods if only to misdirect the investigations, not because they wanted to kill differently. These crimes predate those kinds of investigative tools. No CCTV, no means of signaling other law enforcement other than by foot or with a whistle, no fingerprinting, no blood screening, no physical evidence being scientifically analyzed. Hell, they couldn't even tell whether the Lusk kidney was human, female or precisely when it was taken from a body.

        There was no reason to change, no indication by those murders that change was likely, and no need to misdirect the authorities by killing in another manner. They had no idea who he was, we just can see what he did, and by that, what he wanted. I don't see any evidence that the same man even thought of disarticulation, dismemberment or any other vile activity other than what he chose to do twice within 2 weeks time.

        You can use any serial killers history to try and show that modern serial killers can change their habits when killing, but you haven't yet established that this killer of Polly and Annie showed us any evidence all that he wanted to do anything other than exactly what he did do to them.
        Sigh. He did not kill in another manner - he stuck to his guns throughout. It was always about cutting women open, about disassembling their bodies. Of course a killer who is interested in doing that will have a lot of possibilities open: Should I cut the face too this time? Maybe the kidney AND the uterus? Lets carve a breast away! The different setting allowed for different amounts of indulgence and there was always new things to try.

        Polly and Annie are not alike if we look closer. In one case, he took out innards, in the other he did not. In one case, he cut the abdominal flesh away, in the other, he did not. In one case, he threw the intestines over the shoulder, in the other he did not.

        He WOULD have, if he had the time, you say - but would he not have done to Annie what he did to Kelly if he had time? Kelly also suffered having her abdominal flesh taken away. Kelly also suffered having her uterus taken out. Kelly also suffered having the intestines cleared away. And she had the trademark belly ripping and throat cutting.

        If Annie Chapman is an extended Polly Nichols, then how come Mary Kelly is not an extended Annie Chapman? How does your logic work in that case?

        Answer: It fails sorely.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          Jeff,

          If youre disputing that the Canonical Group is made from anything but presumptions and opinions, then we will never agree.
          Well, Mac was wrong about it, I think I can guarantee that much.

          The Ripper had a round dozen victims and a round dozen victims only. And a saw.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            Jeff,

            If youre disputing that the Canonical Group is made from anything but presumptions and opinions, then we will never agree. Its guesswork, not science, not based on the existing evidence. The existing evidence alone would have to exclude at least 1 Canonical from that group immediately.

            People choose this position, its not that they are compelled by the evidence to accept it. I choose to match the very similar square pegs with the square slots and "presume" that round pegs must belong elsewhere. Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate are square pegs.
            And in my assessment, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly are square pegs. The shape of Stride's peg is undermined, and may be square and may be round. Hence, we disagree.

            All interpretation of evidence is just that, interpretation. If you want to use pejorative language like presumptions and opinions, as a substitute that's fine but it doesn't strengthen the logic of your argument, sophistry never does.

            You do not include Kelly, and you've presented your interpretations of the evidence behind that decision. I could, of course, rephrase that in your words and say your opinion is based upon your own presumptions. Note the difference between effectively stating the same thing, but how it appears to change when pejorative language is used? It carries with it an implied, and unsupported, evaluation, designed to try and convince others (not the person you're discussing things with) without actually giving them valid reasons to be convinced. That was the nature of sophistry, where emotive language rather than rational argument, was considered the primary skill required. It's used to great effect by politicians today, but that's not surprising as the sophists primary form of employment was to train people for political speaking in ancient Greece.

            Anyway, we've discussed our interpretations before concerning Kelly, so we don't need to rehash all of those details, as that will accomplish nothing and this thread isn't about Kelly anyway. In fact, I've been a bit naughty with the profiles here as well, particularly as I've digressed to issues concerning Stride, but it was following a side track that Abby and I ended up on at one point, and I only wanted to update him on that with the recent one. I've covered that to the extent it is warranted for this thread though, so will leave it for now. Happy to continue if anyone wants to start a thread for it, but there's not much I feel needs to be added at this point.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Jeff, to address one of your counter points for the moment, Mary Kelly was atypical in many ways and the manner in which he went about his business happened to be very similar to what had been in almost every paper since early September. Something is only unique if it is, something that matches what has been done before isn't a telltale clue we have the same man in both cases. Mary was younger, had her own room which she was in when she was attacked, she didn't have any compelling reason to be soliciting at that time, and we have evidence that suggests she didn't leave her room after 11:45ish. We also have no evidence she ever brought anyone home to conduct business, and only had a single night at that address where she could have had the place to herself...Wednesday....she is killed early Friday morning....she was at home, undressed, actually in her bed, facing the partition wall...by the spray evidence,...and she was attacked. She seems to have used her arms to defend herself.

              Not outdoors soliciting. So he doesn't have to be a stranger. Not in a public venue. Could be indicative of his choice to find working women in the middle of the night. She was in bed, at home. Virtually half the age of the middle aged co-Canonicals. So he didn't find her the way he has shown us he works, he doesn't have the assumed persona of a stranger-client to hide behind, he attacks her with the knife while she is still able to attempt to fend him off, he takes the time to remove all the flesh from her thighs, he excises and leaves behind the only organ taken twice before, and he leaves the windows and door locked, drapes pulled across.. inhibiting access to the scene...which he has usually left for anyone to see, in spectacularly shocking fashion.

              Ill, as you suggest, leave this line of thought aside for now. But I think its important to understand the actual stability of the ideas you stand upon. If none of these murders had post mortem mutilations, would you still feel that they should be grouped? Are post mortem mutilations something that only 1 person in that area at that time would be capable of, or would want to do? Do similar actions mean that 1 person did them? Do dissimilar actions signify someone else?

              And most pivotally...why were they killed? Ive suggested some valid reasons why Kates murder could be seen in different context to the Ripper murders, anyone can see that in the case of Liz Stride. So..with so many uncertainties, why would I use that unproven theory that groups 5 women under 1 killer to facilitate my search for truth?
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                Mary was younger, had her own room which she was in when she was attacked
                At the risk of sounding tautological, the fact that she was killed in her room was perhaps because she was the only victim who had a room to be killed in.
                she didn't have any compelling reason to be soliciting at that time
                She was in arrears, and the rent was due the next day. Seems a good enough reason to me.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  At the risk of sounding tautological, the fact that she was killed in her room was perhaps because she was the only victim who had a room to be killed in.She was in arrears, and the rent was due the next day. Seems a good enough reason to me.
                  The thing is Sam, since when does the Ripper go looking for women indoors? On the arrears, she was over 2 weeks in arrears and Bowyer was sent Fri morn to "see" if he "could" collect any of that. He acknowledged that once people were occupying a room, it was hard to evict them even with arrears on the table. She didn't have to worry about her room being taken from her, and she had a habit of doing this arrears thing before. She had been evicted for it. So, how come she didn't go out and work...while drunk...and clean up those arrears before being evicted? Likely because she would rather take money from men than earn it from them. Just ask Joe Barnett.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    The thing is Sam, since when does the Ripper go looking for women indoors?
                    Since when did streetwalkers try to find clients by staying in their flats?
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Since when did streetwalkers try to find clients by staying in their flats?
                      Yes, good point Sam. So,... since we have no evidence that Mary had been walking any streets at all that night for clients, or with any regularity leading up to her death, and since we have no evidence she ever brought a strange man, aside from Blotchy...(one we don't know already) to her room, I guess she wasn't a streetwalker or a "home entertainment" worker that night. Which returns to my original question about her killer. At what point do we see any indication that someone who sought streetwalkers actively working the streets would then try small off street courtyards and private rooms, where he would find no-one walking any streets?

                      When you add that she was already drunk when she got home, you almost 100% have someone who came to her room for her specifically. Not someone who picks up strangers outdoors while they worked, or who is opportunity activated.
                      Last edited by Michael W Richards; 12-05-2019, 04:43 PM.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        since we have no evidence she ever brought a strange man, aside from Blotchy...
                        There's no reason to believe that Blotchy was the only man she ever brought a stranger back home. Indeed, why wouldn't a prostitute with a room of her own take advantage of the privacy, and probably earn more for it, rather than copulate up against a wall in a side-street for three or four pennies?
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          If you mean unproven Harry then the premise that Jack the Ripper killed Five women now know as the Canonical Group is by far the longest false or unproven premise this area of study will ever see. Its GIGO situation alright, and when you start by assuming 5 victims without any known connection to each other or a single killer, that's the Garbage IN. The Garbage Out is what people then do with that unproven, or to this date...false...premise.
                          There is a significant difference between an unproven premise and a false premise. Every theory about the Ripper killings is unproven, but only some are provably false. And among those unproven theories, some are more credible than others.

                          The idea that the Canon Five were all victims of the same killer is not a false premise, there are clear similarities between the killings and nothing has proven the theory false. At the same time, there are credible reasons to drop some victims from the C5 and/or add others to the list.

                          You and Fisherman seem to be taking opposite views, both of which disagree strongly with each other and with the Cannon Five theory. Fisherman appears to feel that the Ripper Killings and the Torso Murders were the the work of a single serial killer. You appear to be saying there were no serial killers operating in Whitechapel at the time.

                          As noted, there are credible reasons to drop some victims from the C5 and/or add others to the list, but the C5 theory is more credible than either your theory or Fisherman's theory. As I have noted in another thread, there are several major differences between the Ripper MO and the Torso MO. These differences are big enough that I cannot see the same person committing both series unless they suffered from multiple personality disorder.

                          You appear to be arguing that most or all of the Ripper killings were completely unrelated. While this is not provably false, your points are not strong.

                          You appear to be arguing that acknowledgement that any period murders were not done by the Ripper implies that the Ripper never existed. Even most people who think the Torso Killer was the Ripper don't attribute all of the period killings to one man. The police files examined 11 period murders, in the end concluding only the C5 were the work of the same man. The idea that some period murders were done by people other than the Ripper is not evidence that the Ripper did not exist - that is a false premise on your part.

                          Implied in that point, you seem to be arguing that the police attributed unrelated murders to the Ripper, though you have provided no motive for why the police would do that. The police only attributed 5 of the 11 murders in the case file to the Ripper, so they certainly were not trying to attribute every vaguely similar murder to the Ripper.

                          You appear to be arguing that Eddowes, Stride, and Kelly not being known to have been soliciting immediately before their deaths proves they were not Ripper victims. This requires ignoring that Stride and Kelly were known prostitutes, Eddowes was killed in an area frequented by prostitutes, and all three were in need of money. For that matter, serial killers who target prostitutes have frequently also murdered down-and-out women who were not prostitutes. Your idea that Eddowes, Stride, and Kelly not being known to have been soliciting immediately before their deaths proves they were not Ripper victims is also a false premise.

                          You are definitely arguing that Catherine Eddowes killer tried to cut her nose off. The evidence shows this is a false premise on your part - the only cut to Eddowes nose also cut her upper lip. Also, whether or not Eddowes killer was trying to cut her nose off proves nothing about whether her killer was the Ripper.

                          You're on much stronger ground when you argue about the lack of mutilation in the Stride killing and the Kelly killing taking place indoors, but even there you appear to be ignoring the similarities that have led most people to place them with the Canon Five. Even that does not prove that there was no serial killer operating in Whitechapel in 1888, it merely reduces the list of victims.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            You realize that the "task at hand" referred to extracting and taking her kidney and partial uterus? That's all there is to go by here. The result of any of these attacks is self explanatory if you let it be so. Pollys killer wanted to kill her and mutilate her abdomen, Annies killer wanted to kill her and obtain her uterus..Liz Strides killer wanted her dead, Kates killer wanted to kill her and mutilate her abdomen, take an intact kidney,and mark her face. Marys killer vented on her, then took her apart in ways that had nothing to do with the end result..which was obtaining her heart.

                            The end result Harry. That all you have to determine what the killers objectives or intentions were. And clearly, they are not all the same.

                            Like I said, 5 murders equals 5 stories, not just one.
                            Nichols' killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

                            Chapman's killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

                            Strides killer strangled her and cut her throat. That may have been all he intended, but that is assumption.

                            Eddowes' killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

                            Kelly's killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

                            Save for Stride, the killings show escalating levels of mutilation, not completely different intentions.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                              Nichols' killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

                              Chapman's killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

                              Strides killer strangled her and cut her throat. That may have been all he intended, but that is assumption.

                              Eddowes' killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

                              Kelly's killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

                              Save for Stride, the killings show escalating levels of mutilation, not completely different intentions.
                              And you could add,
                              Chapman, took organs.
                              Eddowes, took organs and slashed face
                              Kelly, took organs, slashed face, removed flesh from legs.

                              (with mutilations being modified to abdominal mutilations). Basically, each of the 4 from Nichols to Kelly, is the previous with more added.

                              - Jeff
                              Last edited by JeffHamm; 12-05-2019, 07:11 PM.

                              Comment


                              • I just can't imagine a modern day police chief assembling the force and saying "men, we've got a rash of purse snatchers in the area." "I say snatchers plural because even though they all approach a woman from behind and push her apparently one favors brown purses, another favors black purses and another will only take purses with gold buckles."

                                Draw your own conclusions.

                                c.d.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X