Lipski

[John G]

Ive taken this position for many years here, and taken lots of guff for it, but with the absence of ANY sound contradictory evidence presented I am still satisfied with this preliminary conclusion, just 2 women within the Canonical Group were killed by one man, or men. A possible third is Kate Eddowes, and that depends almost solely on whether she was really seen at 12:35. If she was, then there is a possible explanation for the seriously degraded level of knife skill anatomical knowledge... due to haste.

Why do you say there was a "seriously degraded level of knife skills and anatomical knowledge"? You might want to consider the fact that experts engaged by Trevor Marriott clearly considered that Eddowes' killer demonstrated an exceptional level of knife skills, and even Dr Brown thought her killer was probably a medical student.

Thus, in respect of Eddowes, Philip Harrison, an experienced eviscerator, opined: "To work in such an intricate manner and to remove the kidney carefully and the uterus without damaging the surrounding tissue with a six inch knife would be very difficult. In the time the perpetrator had with their heightened levels of awareness and the prospect of being caught makes this even more difficult." (Marriott, 2013).

[Harry D]

Both are acceptable actually and it's a pet peeve of mine when British are dicks. So let's stop that, shall we. Now, carry on with your stern lecture.

Mike

Wrong. If you could care less, that obviously means you care to some degree, when it's actually supposed to be expressing apathy. But hey, if you don't want to take this pompous Brit's word for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw

[The Good Michael]

First of all, it's couldn't care less, since the opposite is a contradiction in meaning. It's a pet peeve of mine that you North Americans have butchered that expression.

Both are acceptable actually and it's a pet peeve of mine when British are dicks. So let's stop that, shall we. Now, carry on with your stern lecture.

Mike

[Harry D]

I'm glad you weren't working on the Yorkshire Ripper case. By your reductive logic, you would've thrown out of Jayne MacDonald, because she was a 16 year-old schoolgirl and not a prostitute in her late 20s-40s like the previous victims. And I'm sure you would've also dismissed his later attacks on Upadhya Bandara & Marguerite Walls because they involved a ligature. None of those victims would've had justice because the methodology and victimology wasn't exactly the same.

You have this deeply flawed perception that the serial killer must be some kind of MurderBot 5000 who's only programmed to kill under set conditions and cannot deviate from those mission parameters. Schlesinger & co's 2010 study on 'Ritual and Signature in Serial Sexual Homicide' found that offenders "...rarely engaged in exactly the same behavior at every murder. Most rituals were not identical, but they were behaviorally similar, thematically consistent, and, in about half the cases, they changed or evolved." This is perfectly congruent with four of the canonical five insomuch that the post-mortem mutilations became more elaborate and violent as the series developed.

[Michael W Richards]

There are reasons to doubt Stride, that much is a given, but there are also too many unknowns to say either way with any great confidence. And yes, I'm going to roll out the usual chestnut that the killer might have been disrupted.

If there was one scintilla of evidence that suggests an interruption happened I would be inclined to have her as a possible, as it is, there is no evidence that she was killed by a double throat cutting- post mortem mutilator.

First of all, it's couldn't care less, since the opposite is a contradiction in meaning. It's a pet peeve of mine that you North Americans have butchered that expression. Secondly, I'm well aware of your aversion to comparisons with modern serial killers. That doesn't make them any less valid.


The use of modern serial killer data in the investigation of just the Canonical murders is to provide excuses for the many discrepancies between the murders of Polly and Annie, and the rest of the Five. Its not acceptable to merely assume that opinion is enough weight to connect one murder with another. Sorry you dont like the way Ive butchered the expression. I cant answer for the rest of North America, Im sure you understand.

Hutchinson's story was sketchy but was it ever discredited? How do you know the man who came back with MJK wasn't a punter? She was a destitute who made her money on her back and had recently broken up with her live-in lover. It's not exactly a stretch to think she was back on the game.

If your saying that its a reasonable guess Mary was soliciting on that night youve not only overlooked all the evidence that suggests she was not "working" that night, as well of the lack of evidence that a room in her own name was ever used as a business area.

And if 'Blotchy' or Joseph Isaacs were good suspects for that crime, chances are they were candidates for the rest.

Why must a single possible suspect for just one murder suddenly become one for all the crimes committed against Unfortunates? There are blatant, obvious differences in the murders of Liz Stride and Mary Kelly with Polly and Annies killings, and there were many, many threats to anyone on those streets every night of that Fall....not just on the Canonical nights. Gangs, drunk clients...like in Marthas case...terrorists, people who knew that Unfortunates were being paid as spies on the local community. Like maybe the one that killed Liz Stride.

Absence of evidence and absence of known motive do not allow anyone to match any one of these murders with another, I only match the ones that are virtually identical in every truly relevant aspect...even the ones coveted by serial killer enthusiasts. Like yourself.

Roll your eyes all you want, you made the faux pas that I want to see "any knife crime in 1888 or 1889" attributed to the Ripper. I never said or even implied such a thing. I have no idea how many of these murders were committed by the same man. There are serial killers out there whose victim counts have hit double figures and they adjusted their methods. In which case, how can we definitively rule out any of these unsolved murders in Whitechapel? However, what I can do is recognise a consistent pattern.

If see you a recognizable pattern from Annie Chapman to Liz Stride and Mary Kelly then I humbly suggest you need to have a stronger prescription lens.

Ive taken this position for many years here, and taken lots of guff for it, but with the absence of ANY sound contradictory evidence presented I am still satisfied with this preliminary conclusion, just 2 women within the Canonical Group were killed by one man, or men. A possible third is Kate Eddowes, and that depends almost solely on whether she was really seen at 12:35. If she was, then there is a possible explanation for the seriously degraded level of knife skill anatomical knowledge... due to haste.

[Harry D]

Stride is an obvious deviation, once you use the grey matter.

There are reasons to doubt Stride, that much is a given, but there are also too many unknowns to say either way with any great confidence. And yes, I'm going to roll out the usual chestnut that the killer might have been disrupted.

I could care less what modern theory about serial killers is, as I said.. once again... I believe we are talking about 2 murders by one man, maybe 3, and that is just barely within the serial killer definition.

First of all, it's couldn't care less, since the opposite is a contradiction in meaning. It's a pet peeve of mine that you North Americans have butchered that expression. Secondly, I'm well aware of your aversion to comparisons with modern serial killers. That doesn't make them any less valid.

No. Because she was killed indoors in bed...location...., because she was half the age of any other Canonical...victimology....

This is such a reductive argument that I can't even be bothered to refute it.

There is a statement by witness that is later discredited that suggests that. It appears though she was out drinking and came home drunk with someone from the bar, the either slept with the man or by herself.

Hutchinson's story was sketchy but was it ever discredited? How do you know the man who came back with MJK wasn't a punter? She was a destitute who made her money on her back and had recently broken up with her live-in lover. It's not exactly a stretch to think she was back on the game.

Blotchy man is a good suspect, if his name was Joe, he is a very good suspect. Issacs is also a good possibility...Joe Isaacs.

And if 'Blotchy' or Joseph Isaacs were good suspects for that crime, chances are they were candidates for the rest.

Roll your eyes all you want, you made the faux pas that I want to see "any knife crime in 1888 or 1889" attributed to the Ripper. I never said or even implied such a thing. I have no idea how many of these murders were committed by the same man. There are serial killers out there whose victim counts have hit double figures and they adjusted their methods. In which case, how can we definitively rule out any of these unsolved murders in Whitechapel? However, what I can do is recognise a consistent pattern.

Dont have a suspect, dont need one. My goal is to obtain an accurate total.

And let me just say you've done a bang up job so far!

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael
first of all, they probably were stranger to stranger, except perhaps the Kelly murder, which seems to be that they were known to each other.

the similarity of the series is why they were not random acts of violence-its the clear pattern of a serial killer who, as most do, perfect there technique as they go along and exhibit escalating violence as there fantasy evolves. which might explain any apparent "differences" between murders, as will the specific circumstances of each particular event.

as ive said countless times before-you miss the major similarities between them by focusing on minute differences. cant see the forest through the trees so to speak. That and or some pre conceived theories that you stubbornly adhere to.

I agree that the first 2 were almost certainly stranger to stranger, it appears that while soliciting these women met their killer, and whether their diminished capacity or the fact that they were alone in the middle of the night, he took his opportunity. A random killing, in that no specific person was intended.

The thing I take seriously, where some others do not, are the circumstances. Both Polly and Annie were weakened physically, Polly from drink, Annie was ill, but they were also the ONLY 2 Canonicals that were KNOWN to be soliciting at the time. Therefore their very activity provided the killer with the means to get them into the dark alone. That cannot be said within the remaining 3 women who were also in that infamous Group. In fact, 1 was at home in bed.

The actual wounds created were all by knife, but they differed greatly by severity and focus. Also by demonstrated skill.

That's why I cling to the beliefs I have.

[Abby Normal]

I'm curious...what evidence do you base your assumption on that Polly and Annie were not random acts of violence, stranger to stranger as it were.

Hi Michael
first of all, they probably were stranger to stranger, except perhaps the Kelly murder, which seems to be that they were known to each other.

the similarity of the series is why they were not random acts of violence-its the clear pattern of a serial killer who, as most do, perfect there technique as they go along and exhibit escalating violence as there fantasy evolves. which might explain any apparent "differences" between murders, as will the specific circumstances of each particular event.

as ive said countless times before-you miss the major similarities between them by focusing on minute differences. cant see the forest through the trees so to speak. That and or some pre conceived theories that you stubbornly adhere to.

[c.d.]

I'm curious...what evidence do you base your assumption on that Polly and Annie were not random acts of violence, stranger to stranger as it were.

Hello Michael,

The problem is that random acts of violence do not equate to the Ripper murders. It is the very nature of the murders, i.e, organ removal (or in Polly's case an apparent attempt at such) that make them unique. If all of these women had simply had their throats cut Ripperology would not be what it is today. So yes, bad men did exist in Whitechapel as you say but simply being a bad or evil man or even a murderer is not the same as a murderer who removes internal organs from the women he killed.

Focusing on the differences in the murders makes us lose sight of what made them unique in the first place.

c.d.

[John G]

I'm curious...what evidence do you base your assumption on that Polly and Annie were not random acts of violence, stranger to stranger as it were.

The double throat cuts, in respect of Polly and Annie, are strongly indicative of a ritualistic element to those murders. And, this is very much indicative of a serial killer.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes it all does matter and points to a serial killer and not random acts.

I'm curious...what evidence do you base your assumption on that Polly and Annie were not random acts of violence, stranger to stranger as it were.

[Abby Normal]

The man was Michael Maybrick of course and he was using a verse from a song he'd been working on which mocked Polish immigrants in the end. I don't remember the entire song as I was stumbling around drunk trying to light a pipe, but it went something like "Loose Lipskis, sink shipskis."

Pipeman

Lol. Well aren't you a clever little devil.

[The Good Michael]

The man was Michael Maybrick of course and he was using a verse from a song he'd been working on which mocked Polish immigrants in the end. I don't remember the entire song as I was stumbling around drunk trying to light a pipe, but it went something like "Loose Lipskis, sink shipskis."

Pipeman

[Abby Normal]

We are all familiar with the wisecracks and bizarre interpretations. Maybe you should read about the cases....without the so often insertion of suspect bias. Location/Victimology/Signature-Pattern...all that matters. And of course that the real so called Ripper murders were random acts.

Yes it all does matter and points to a serial killer and not random acts.

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly
It's absurd how far some people go on here to see minor differences in major similarities. I mean you could say there are 5 different serial killers based on the minor differences in c5.

Polly. No organs taken
Chapman. Uterus taken
Eddowes. Kidney taken
Stride. Cut throat only
Kelly. Heart taken

We are all familiar with the wisecracks and bizarre interpretations. Maybe you should read about the cases....without the so often insertion of suspect bias. Location/Victimology/Signature-Pattern...all that matters. And of course that the real so called Ripper murders were random acts.