skill

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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, Iīm 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]

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

[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

[Fisherman]

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

Wrong, Lynn. Already Bagster Phillips spoke of the differences, we all know that! Everybody has known for these 125 years that there were differences - parallel or single cuts, skin flaps or no skin flaps, different depths of cutting, different amounts of cutting, cuts to the faces or no cuts to the faces. But this has rightly been rejected as any clear indications of more than one killer.

Just like I said, it is not how the eviscerations were performed that made the police -once again correctly - opt for a single killer being the credible solution. It was that they were eviscerations in the first place.

If the killer eviscerated looking for innard A in one instance, performing under much time pressure and with a flawed weapon, whereas he looked for innard B in another killing, having time on his hands and a very sharp and good knife to use, then that would have had every chance to influence the result, the visible outcome of the evisceration. And the police would have realized this too.

There had not been anything like the Ripper murders in that territory as long back as anybody could remember. Suddenly they were faced with a number of eviscerations in a very short period of time. Much as they COULD have been performed by different people, all of them, the very obvious bid that they were all the work of one man was the only truly realistic call for the police to make. That applied then, and it still applies today.

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

futile

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"But this has rightly been rejected as any clear indications of more than one killer."

Wrong! Arnold was convinced that more than one hand was involved. Same for Drs. Phillips and Clark.

"Just like I said, it is not how the eviscerations were performed that made the police -once again correctly - opt for a single killer being the credible solution. It was that they were eviscerations in the first place."

And again, incorrect. Two were not eviserated. Ah! But perhaps he intended to? (Don't worry, I shan't resurrect old threads where you argued the other side of this point.)

Why is he looking for different "innards"? That is not standard social scientific rot.

"Much as they COULD have been performed by different people, all of them, the very obvious bid that they were all the work of one man was the only truly realistic call for the police to make. That applied then, and it still applies today."

And that, as today, demonstrates WHY the police efforts were utterly futile.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

That is not why the police efforts were "utterly futile." Each murder was investigated separately by standard procedure on the local level. At Scotland Yard they were casting a bigger net. You correctly mention Phillips, Clark (who believed Kelly and Chapman fell by the same hand) and Arnold and then they fail because they were looking for one killer? Where's the actual evidence of this? Perhaps the officials trying to solve the Long Island murders could use a little help.

[Fisherman]

lynn cates: Hello Christer. Thanks.

Wrong! Arnold was convinced that more than one hand was involved. Same for Drs. Phillips and Clark.

I already said that Phillips had severe doubts regarding Eddowes. And I have already said that we cannot be sure.

That, however, doesnīt change the overall view that most people always did and always will agree that there was a single serialist with evisceration on his mind loose in the East End in 1888. And that does not to a degree owe to any lack of information - indeed, what you present as some sort of revelation on behalf of Eddowes is material that was gathered by professionals back then. You only know because THEY knew. They had all the material you have at hand, and they nevertheless ended up agreeing more or less unanimously that there was just the one killer in the canonical cases.

And again, incorrect. Two were not eviserated. Ah! But perhaps he intended to? (Don't worry, I shan't resurrect old threads where you argued the other side of this point.)

Iīm afraid I am anything but incorrect. And I am afraid I am only speaking of the evisceration murders - otherwise, there would be no point to make, would there, Lynn?
Stride and Tabram have always been the subject of more doubt than Nichols (and I look upon Nichols as a woman about to be eviscerated - she had been opened up), Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, and that only stands to reason.

Why is he looking for different "innards"? That is not standard social scientific rot.

I am not saying he was - I only say that different purposes, mindsets, speeds, whatever, will arguably be something that may explain why the eviscerations were not looking exactly the same.

And that, as today, demonstrates WHY the police efforts were utterly futile.

Thatīs your contention, I know that, and you are welcome to it. I donīt agree at all, since I am convinced that it was not the failure to realize that there were a vast number of eviscerators on the loose that made the investigation fail. I think there was just the one man, and that other shortcomings on behalf of the police was what led to the failure to catch their man.

None of us will be able to prove the other man wrong, so I will waste as little time as I can on this fortwith.

All the best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

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

Hello Lynn,

The problem with the copy cat theory as I see it is that there are copy cats and then again there are copy cats. I have no problem with someone reading about statues in the park being defaced and thinking hey that's kind of cool I think I'll try that. But it seems awfully hard to believe the same response would be elicited when reading about cutting throats and removing internal organs.

c.d.

[Hunter]

That may be CD. But Bagster Phillips (rightly or wrongly) was concerned about such happening here. He may have considered the murder at Birtley Fell just such a case. As late as 1910, Percy Clark told an ELO reporter that he could not for certain pin all of the murders on one man and offered the hypothesis that another deranged individual may have taken his cue from an earlier murder.

Of course, neither Phillips or Clark were trained in criminal physiology as Bond was, who obviously believed otherwise. But then again, it may be debatable just how useful such training was in evaluating these murders.

How many of these women were killed by the same hand and how many were not will always be a matter of presumption... just as it was then. But, I will reinterate... this was NOT why the police were not able to solve even one of these murders.

[lynn cates]

moderation

Hello Cris. Thanks.

A bit of hyperbole? Very well--a contributing factor. Of course, I should likely have done the same thing. One killer is a natural assumption.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

about to be

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"They had all the material you have at hand, and they nevertheless ended up agreeing more or less unanimously that there was just the one killer in the canonical cases."

Fair enough. And I'm SURE you agree on their assessment of suspect, Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski and Klowsowski.

"I look upon Nichols as a woman about to be eviscerated."

But "about to be" is not was.

Cheers.
LC