Lipski

[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]

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.

[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]

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

[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).

[The Good Michael]

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

I use it the way you do, but it is used both ways. It is beyond the meaning of the individual words. Your pet peeve is asinine. Join the 21st century. Tell me I'm wrong again. I could care less... oops. Get out and travel the world and see what words people use. Or...sit on your sofa and remain pompous. Your choice. Just don't be a dick.

Mike

[Harry D]

I use it the way you do, but it is used both ways. It is beyond the meaning of the individual words. Your pet peeve is asinine. Join the 21st century. Tell me I'm wrong again. I could care less... oops. Get out and travel the world and see what words people use. Or...sit on your sofa and remain pompous. Your choice. Just don't be a dick.

Mike

Of course it's used both ways, because Americans are lazy and love to drop syllables and letters from English, even when it makes no sense.

There's only one person being a dick here, and it's the guy who shoved himself into the middle of a debate for a spat about grammar.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Great post harry

[John G]

Of course, we can't completely rule out the possibility that two or more assailants were operating together: this might, for instance, explain the exceptionally rare sexual assault of Emma Smith and other anomalies in the various "Whitechapel" murders.

Although this would be unusual it certainly wouldn't be unprecedented: http://murderuk.com/serial_john_duff...d_mulcahy.html

It might also explain the various inconsistencies in respect of suspect descriptions.

[c.d.]

As has always been the case, it simply boils down to what is more likely -- that there were multiple killers on the streets of Whitechapel at the same time who had a penchant for cutting women's throats and removing their internal organs or that it was a single killer who deviated somewhat in his M.O. for whatever reasons. It is a question that everyone need to decide for themselves. Personally I lean toward the latter explanation.

c.d.

[John G]

If the miniature of the various crime scenes are considered important then surely Alice Mackenzie must be considered as a possible, if not probable, JtR murder. Thus, it has been argued that Nichols and Chapman must have been killed by the same hand because of the "ritualistic" element of the double throat/neck cuts. However, Mackenzie also suffered two stab wounds to the neck "which carried forward in the same skin wound."

And if there is a link to McKenzie, doesn't this perfectly illustrate how the ritualistic element of serial murder can evolve or become more elaborate across victims?

[The Good Michael]

Of course it's used both ways, because Americans are lazy and love to drop syllables and letters from English, even when it makes no sense.

There's only one person being a dick here, and it's the guy who shoved himself into the middle of a debate for a spat about grammar.

Americans are lazy... funny stuff. There was no debate about grammar, by the way. There was a berate however, and that rhymes, so you're partway there, Richard.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

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).

First off a few things...the uterus wasn't removed carefully, we don't know a 6 inch knife was used, I have to think that the colon sectioning was accidental, as perhaps were the facial marks, the tracing of the navel seems awkward and unneccesary, and the physician who examined both Polly and Annie felt that Kates wounds were different in nature.

I havent excluded Kate as a possibility, I will concede there are sound points on both sides of that fence. But I don't see what I saw with the first 2...a preoccupation with abdominal mutilation...and I certainly don't see a clean uterus extraction, which is something he would have done at least once before in the dark.

[John G]

First off a few things...the uterus wasn't removed carefully, we don't know a 6 inch knife was used, I have to think that the colon sectioning was accidental, as perhaps were the facial marks, the tracing of the navel seems awkward and unneccesary, and the physician who examined both Polly and Annie felt that Kates wounds were different in nature.

I havent excluded Kate as a possibility, I will concede there are sound points on both sides of that fence. But I don't see what I saw with the first 2...a preoccupation with abdominal mutilation...and I certainly don't see a clean uterus extraction, which is something he would have done at least once before in the dark.

Hello Michael,

Which physician said that Kate's wounds were different in character from Annie and Polly's? Can you cite a reference?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Which physician said that Kate's wounds were different in character from Annie and Polly's? Can you cite a reference?

It was Bagster Phillips John. The physician who saw Polly, Annie, Liz and Kate in person during the autopsies. He saw obvious differences with Liz Strides wounds, and differences in the wounds Kate had from those of the first 2 Canonicals. Ill see if I can find it while here at work, if not I have it at home on my pc. Ill get back to you.