skill

[lynn cates]

main point

Hello (again) Christer. Thanks.

Now for my main point.

"A man who likes to produce pentagrams on his victims and who has done so repeatedly would however reasonably not turn to a triangle instead, since it would point away from him and a handiwork he took pride in, arguably."

Absolutely agree. And that is my MAIN point. I congratulate you on seeing the analogy.

"The comparison therefore is not a good one, I feel."

Why do you feel that? Why suddenly switch from strangling to a mere take down and why go from double, parallel cuts to single ones?

The "triangle man" is fairly easily detected as a copier. But for 125 years, almost no one can discern the obvious and grave differences with Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

numeration of denominators

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"In your example, you present a classical copycat killing, where the copycat did only have the information that the victims had a geometrical pattern cut into them, and he then chances on the wrong geometrical figure. That does not, I'm afraid, compare to the Ripper eviscerations, since the eviscerations as such are the common denominator to a very large extent."

Actually, the eviserations, which occurred on 3 of 5 victims, is most certainly NOT the common denominator. There is only one such item for the C5, and that is the cut throats.

In fact, if you consider Polly and Annie, you see such items as double parallel neck cuts, facial bruising and CLEAR signs of strangulation.

Now, if you wish to talk about common denominators . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Suppose a serial killer begins to kill and that is his ONLY motive. Then, as a result, one might expect dead bodies--one shot, one stabbed, a couple of strangulations, perhaps a blunt force trauma.

But now consider the following scenario with you as inspector. A woman is found dead of a cut throat and the PM reveals that, after death, the perpetrator had carved a pentagram in her abdomen. A note was found proclaiming, "I am the geometric killer. Here is my sign for all my murders."

A week later, same thing. You release a statement to the papers that, "A serial killer--geometric man--is killing women and carving a geometrical figure in them." However, you will not specify that figure for later verification purposes.

Now, suppose three weeks later, a woman is found and she has a triangle carved into her. Same hand?

Cheers.
LC

The police will, as long as the similarities suggest a link, work from the clear possibility that they are dealing with the same killer.

The more distinctive the method of killing is, the more likely it will be that the same killer is at work.

Finding two people shot to death would not necessarily be very indicative of the same killer, since there are many revolvers and pistols, and many angry people around.

If the caliber of the bullets is the same, it will increase the probability of the same killer. But if the victims have been shot in different body parts, it decreases the possibility somewhat.

If however, the victims are shot in the same approximate neigbourhood, with the same caliber of bullets and in the exact same body part, for example through the eye, then a very good case can be made that we have the same killer in all instances.

In your example, you present a classical copycat killing, where the copycat did only have the information that the victims had a geometrical pattern cut into them, and he then chances on the wrong geometrical figure. That does not, I´m afraid, compare to the Ripper eviscerations, since the eviscerations as such are the common denominator to a very large extent.

Even if it can be led on that these eviscerations were possibly performed with different weapons, and even if they were performed in deviating fashions, they are nevertheless eviscerations and as such very uncommon crimes, at least they were VERY uncommon in 1888. And that trumphs any smaller or larger deviations when it comes to how they were performed - the police would have been more prone to accept that the killer could have had different weapons, different amounts of time on his hands, different exploratory urges and different mindsets and levels of anxiety/anger as he cut, than they would be to accept that every small deviation would point to a new killer.

A man who likes to produce pentagrams on his victims and who has done so repeatedly would however reasonably not turn to a triangle instead, since it would point away from him and a handiwork he took pride in, arguably. The comparison therefore is not a good one, I feel.

Conclusion: we can never be sure that it was just the one killer.

But we CAN be very sure that it is the overall best guess.

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

added murder

Hello CD.

"Either we accept your explanation for variations that we see or we have to believe that several killers all of whom had a penchant for cutting women's throats and removing their internal organs just happened to congregate in Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888."

I fear your bifurcation here is not exhaustive. Why a penchant? If, as I believe, Kate was a genuine copy cat ("Possibly the work of an imitator") then ALL one needs is an approximation, and, behold! one has an added "JTR" murder.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

geometry

Hello Harry. Thanks.

No, I say NOTHING about "exactly the same." In fact, were it not for the strong commonalities in the first two, I should think NOTHING of variations.

Suppose a serial killer begins to kill and that is his ONLY motive. Then, as a result, one might expect dead bodies--one shot, one stabbed, a couple of strangulations, perhaps a blunt force trauma.

But now consider the following scenario with you as inspector. A woman is found dead of a cut throat and the PM reveals that, after death, the perpetrator had carved a pentagram in her abdomen. A note was found proclaiming, "I am the geometric killer. Here is my sign for all my murders."

A week later, same thing. You release a statement to the papers that, "A serial killer--geometric man--is killing women and carving a geometrical figure in them." However, you will not specify that figure for later verification purposes.

Now, suppose three weeks later, a woman is found and she has a triangle carved into her. Same hand?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Lynn, surely you can't be expecting each scenario to play out exactly as the last? Don't you think that the individual circumstances might dictate a slight variation in the MO?

Hello Harry,

It would appear that our choices are quite limited. Either we accept your explanation for variations that we see or we have to believe that several killers all of whom had a penchant for cutting women's throats and removing their internal organs just happened to congregate in Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888.

c.d.

[Harry D]

Hello Harry. Thanks.

Very well. Why was this discontinued for Liz and Kate?

Would not a person killing another by cutting the throat do the same as the ritual butcher?

Lynn, surely you can't be expecting each scenario to play out exactly as the last? Don't you think that the individual circumstances might dictate a slight variation in the MO?

[lynn cates]

wounds

Hello (yet again) CD. I think I see what you're sticking at. Tabram, for instance, had 39 stab woulds. Would it then be significant if two other subsequent murders had, say 25 stab wounds and 31? Of course not.

But that is not the analogy here. It would be like finding victim #1 dead with two stab wounds--heart and liver. Then victim #2, likewise two stab wounds--also heart and liver. Then, #3, Tabram. See what I mean?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

planning

Hello (again) CD. Thanks.

"You also have to wonder if the killer was really cognizant of how he cut."

If you mean, force, etc. I daresay not. He just cut in his usual manner. And that is PRECISELY why the skill disparity between the first two and Kate is so significant.

If, however, you refer to the double, parallel cuts, of course he was aware.

"Did he really sit and contemplate the method he used last time and then take great pains to duplicate it?"

Were the killings unplanned then? Then why bring a knife?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

parallel

Hello CD. Thanks.

Although that is not the premise of this thread, let's discuss. Yes, dead is dead. So why a second parallel cut to the neck--and in BOTH the first two cases? Surely something so unusual links these together as a series. So why suddenly change?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

You also have to wonder if the killer was really cognizant of how he cut. Did he really sit and contemplate the method he used last time and then take great pains to duplicate it? As far as the cuts causing death, he was successful every time.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Harry. Thanks.

Very well. Why was this discontinued for Liz and Kate?

Would not a person killing another by cutting the throat do the same as the ritual butcher?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I think this all depends on whether the cutting of the throat was simply a means to an end or the end itself.

A good, deep cut to the throat will generally kill the victim. Cutting from left to right or right to left accomplishes the same thing. Cutting three times as opposed to once or twice isn't going to make the victim any more dead. I just don't see why the killer needs to be consistent in the way he cut. Dead is dead.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

discontinued

Hello Harry. Thanks.

Very well. Why was this discontinued for Liz and Kate?

Would not a person killing another by cutting the throat do the same as the ritual butcher?

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

Hello Harry. Thanks.

One slash killed? Then why did Polly and Annie receive TWO cuts to the neck?

Ritualistically? How so?

Greetings Lynn,

1. Perhaps to make sure the victims were dead and to speed up the bleeding process?

2. I believe the killings have the marks of shechita -
The act is performed by severing the trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins and vagus nerve in a swift action using an extremely sharp blade ("chalef") only by a qualified shochet. According to Jewish religious sources, this results in a rapid drop in blood pressure in the brain and loss of consciousness rendering the animal insensible to pain and to exsanguinate in a prompt and precise action.

G'day Harry

Who was drained of blood?

Where did it all drain to?

Hello GUT,

The victims were 'drained' and positioned in such a way that there would be less blood within the viscera when it came to the eviscerations and he could also avoid getting any blood splatter on himself.

[lynn cates]

disparity

Hello John. Thanks.

Quite agree. Phillips said as much and attributed it to haste.

Still, the disparity between Polly and Annie on the one hand, and Kate on the other, was enough to raise the eyebrows of the medicos, to say nothing of the coroner.

Cheers.
LC