6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Rivkah,

The point that I was making was that these women didn't need to be actively soliciting to end up interacting with their killer if he approached them with an offer of money for their services. Simple enough.

c.d.

Then I guess we essentially agree; I just think a person would have to be fairly sure a woman would be receptive before using that, and would start with an "ice-breaker," then move on to some kind of coded language, which would get him a blank stare, an "I'm off tonight," or "4d for a tug in the alley, a shilling an hour if you have a room we can go to."

Wasn't one of the theories put forth at the time that it was an escaped Gorilla doing the killings? Now that's thinking outside of the box. Just because it is outside of the box it does not necessarily follow that it is good,clear thinking worth pursuing. I think that notion sometimes gets lost in the shuffle.

c.d.

[SPOILER ALERT]:
That was pretty much the plot of "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" by Edgar Allen Poe. When he wrote it, in 1841, the reclusive gorilla had a sort of mythical status; it had been observed from a distance, and skeletons found, but no live one captured, and it had never been studied up close.

By 1888, the gorilla was confirmed as a real animal, but it was unlikely anyone in the East End had ever seen one, or a photograph of one. At the same time, anthropologists firmly believed the paranthopus, or "missing link," existed at one time, and there was a current the myth that it might still exist somewhere (Conan Doyle has one conjured up by a medium in the 1926 book The Land of Mists), probably fueled by the discovery of the gorilla, descriptions of which made it sound more human, and more fantastic (in the Greek sense) than it was. Also at that time, criminalistics was a brand new discipline, and putting forth some pretty off-the-wall theories (although, to give it its due, we have it to thank for fingerprinting). One theory was the criminal "type," who could be identified by outward characteristics, and was theorized to be an atavistic human, who was born with characteristics of an earlier species of hominid, such as paranthopus, which made the person unable to conform his behavior to modern ideals or morality, or even simple right and wrong.

When you put the theory of the atavar, the theory of "the missing link," and the Poe story, only 45 years old at that time* together, it's less off the wall. Some big game hunter in a rich part of town brought back and anthropomorphic gorilla, or a missing link, and let it get loose, but since it's confining its attacks to the East End, he's not bothering to do anything about it. That's no weirder than an alien abduction theory, or any of the conspiracy theories we see today.


*For perspective, right now, The Exorcist is 40 years old, but still having a lot of effect on the way people think about both religion and the supernatural, and on the way people in Hollywood make horror movies.

[lynn cates]

the box

Hello Rivkah. I hate to sound brusque, but the box has been thoroughly examined for 125 years almost. It is completely empty.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Well Phil, I think the more people familiarize themselves with the Yorkshire Ripper murders, the less "multi-Ripper" theories we would have.

The modern reader, and to a degree also modern Profilers, put constraints on these Serial Killers which don't really exist.

All thoeries can be flawed - put too much emphasis on one case and you miss wider issues. Whitechapel 1888 was NOT Yorkshire 1970s.

But none of you who have responded to my post read it, did you? My point was not about multiple killers, but about one murder setting up dynamics within the case. You have picked up on a secondary point.

Phil

[caz]

I read it, Phil.

Your main suggestion involved one (random) killer for Tabram; a second for Nichols and Chapman - and later McKenzie (inspired by the Tabram murder); a third for Stride; a fourth for Eddowes; and a fifth for MJK - unless I misunderstood? In short, you had up to five killers, unknown to each other, killing a similar victim type in similar, but unusually horrific ways, for different reasons.

We don't have to put 'too much emphasis on one case' (the Yorkshire Ripper); we have case after case after case from over a hundred years of serial murder that we can look at in minute detail and compare with the WM.

How many cases are there from any period in history which could remotely compare to your version?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's more like "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

The time for thinking outside the box is when you already looked inside, and the solution wasn't there. You do not start looking outside, when you haven't even checked the inside first.

I like it!

Just because some people are unable or unwilling to look at the solution that is sitting there in the box grinning up at them (albeit without a nice neat label round its neck showing the name of the killer or killers), it doesn't mean the box is empty or that they will be able to find a better solution outside.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Rivkah. I hate to sound brusque, but the box has been thoroughly examined for 125 years almost. It is completely empty.

Cheers.
LC

Oh, I dunno. I don't consider pointing out that Liz Stride probably wasn't soliciting, because her behavior beforehand was more like someone getting ready for a date, than someone getting ready for a sort of messy job she didn't seem to like, to be "out of the box" thinking. It might be what happens when women look at a case that was originally investigated only by men.

[Phil H]

Your main suggestion involved one (random) killer for Tabram; a second for Nichols and Chapman - and later McKenzie (inspired by the Tabram murder); a third for Stride; a fourth for Eddowes; and a fifth for MJK - unless I misunderstood? In short, you had up to five killers, unknown to each other, killing a similar victim type in similar, but unusually horrific ways, for different reasons.

Are you arguing Caz that tabram has to have been a Ripper victim because there can only be one killer?

Are you saying that the Torso killer was JtR?

Are you insisting that Jtr killed mckenzie and Coles?

Unless you are you certainly have more than one killer at work in roughly the same time period?

So why not consider more than one hand? It might take us further than your approach has so far done. there are plenty of us now asking questions about the "conventional wisdom" of five or so "canonicals". People are questioning whether eddowes was killed by th same hand as Polly and Annie - or that the circumstances of and motivation behind MJK's mutilations was different to the others.

Wake up, a new day is dawning.

Phil

[caz]

Are you arguing Caz that tabram has to have been a Ripper victim because there can only be one killer?

No absolutes with me, Phil. I actually agree that if Tabram wasn't killed by the ripper (although no evidence rules him out) she probably gave him much food for thought in the run up to killing Nichols.

Are you saying that the Torso killer was JtR?

Again, nothing rules him out, but your little scenario didn't mention the torso murders, and I'm never sure why a second active killer would increase the chances of a third, fourth or even fifth being involved in the Whitechapel series from Smith to Coles. Where's the logic?

Are you insisting that Jtr killed mckenzie and Coles?

I'm insisting on nothing. But once again, neither can be ruled out as the work of the man who was killing unfortunates in 1888.

I have been happy to 'consider more than one hand' for over a decade of debate on the subject, and I don't see that 'approach' taking anyone further now than it ever has.

People are questioning whether eddowes was killed by th same hand as Polly and Annie - or that the circumstances of and motivation behind MJK's mutilations was different to the others.

And how exactly has this been getting those people any nearer to solving a single one of the murders? If someone (and yes, I'm talking to you, Lynn ) thinks he knows who killed Nichols and Chapman, but this individual had an alibi for Eddowes, it stands to reason that her inclusion as a ripper victim will have to be questioned, and questioned good, or it all falls apart at the seams. And as for the motivation behind MJK's mutilations, it's a wise man who could claim to know what motivated an unknown killer to do that to a pretty much unknown victim. It's all a bit cart before the horse for my liking. You need your killer's identity first - with evidence - before you can work on his motivation and whether he can be eliminated from any of the other murders. And I don't see how arguing for several killers is increasing the chances of identifying one or more of them.

Wake up, a new day is dawning.

Well maybe, but at least I'm not weighing myself down with several killers to look for, when there's no evidence they even existed.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

The way I see it, the likely scenarios, from most to least, go like this:

1) One killer for Stride; one for Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly. I have less of an opinion about the non-C victims, but if I were betting, I'd say Coles and Mackenzie had one killer who did not kill any of the C5, Tabram, or Smith, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the same people from a gang were involved in killing Smith & Tabram, although it might have been just one of them for Tabram. (4 altogether, 1 being a gang.)

2) One killer for Stride; one for Nichols & Chapman; one for Eddowes & Kelly; same as above for the non-C victims. (5 altogether)

3) One for Tabram, who possibly was involved in the Smith murder, probably not; one for Nichols, Chapman, & Eddowes; one for Stride; one for Kelly; possibly one for Coles and Mackenzie. (~5)

4) One for Stride; one for Tabram, Nichols & Chapman; one for Eddowes & Kelly; one for the later victims; a "gang" (equally 1 for counting purposes) for Smith. (5)

5) One for Tabram, Nichols, & Chapman; one for Eddowes & Kelly; one for Stride, Coles & Mackenzie. (3)

6) One for the C5, same as 1) for the non-C. (~3)

I base this on the similarity of the weapons used, the type of mutilations, and the progression of mutilations, presuming with certainty that whoever killed Eddowes or Kelly, didn't kill either of the two later victims, and that probably whoever killed Nichols and Chapman did not kill the post-MJK victims either.

I also based it on age of victims and body type, thinking that the victim for some reason preferred plump women, and in one set, they are grouped together, while the slender women are grouped together. Kelly is the odd one out in a grouping, because of her age.

Also, it seems that at least one of the women of the last two was a smoker, and possibly Stride was as well, as smokers seemed to be the target market for cashous. Women smoking in the 1880s was unusual, and I'm not sure how it could be relevant, unless it was a come-on, like asking for a light, or offering one.

And then, three of the women appear to have had minor, but noticeable facial scars: Stride, Coles, and Mackenzie. It could be a coincidence, because a lot of people probably did, but if their killer stalked them, even over an evening, it might have been a way of keeping track of them in a crowd.

All in all, I think there were no fewer than three, and as many as five "Whitechapel murderers."

[Phil H]

Your logic is very close to mine Rivkah.

Phil

[RivkahChaya]

All in all, I think there were no fewer than three, and as many as five "Whitechapel murderers."

I see I left the torso killer out of the equation. I don't think there is any crossover among the torso victims, C- or non-C JTR victims, or any or the theoretical gang killings (Smith).

But, for the record, that does mean there were no fewer than 4 killers in and around Whitechapel that fall, winter & spring.

Your logic is very close to mine Rivkah.

Phil

As usual.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

When the talk comes round to debating whether there was more than just Jack running around London that Fall I get nervous...surely we have progressed far enough to acknowledge that yes, this mythological maniac so many like to assign gruesome unsolved murders to, did not have his own playpen that Fall in London. I also find it interesting that speculating on the many pieces of evidence in existence that suggest other than 1 killer for the 5 women,....(or was he responsible for all the unsolved ladies murdered from that point until his death, without capture, some 40 years later?),..is tantamount to taking some kind of Dr Who fantasy ride.

I mean seriously, there is no difference between suggesting that one man killed not only this Canonical Group and perhaps more than there is suggesting that other parties killed some of the 5 women. Theres not enough evidence available to prove either. I know some of the most senior opinions on the matter side with just three Ripper victims based on the known and existing physical and circumstantial evidence. The evidence as it exists, not as we would like to see it....like in the case of Liz Stride, who is obviously not soliciting on an empty street in front of an establishment that let out more than 150 people an hour earlier. Had she been there when the meeting let out, there might have been some decent argument there. As it is, cashous, flower and skirt she sought to brush the lint from, she is dressed for an encounter. Since its highly unlikely she would be stupid enough to solicit after the crowd has left anyway, that leaves other....very probable, answers.

As to the 6d, you need only look at her jacket and in her hands as she lay there just inside the gates.

Best regards

[Cogidubnus]

I've a very much open mind Rivkah...in other words I openly admit I haven't much more of a clue than when I started!

...but I wouldn't be comfortable ruling out any of your suggestions...Nos 2 and 5 hold attractions for me...but so do some aspects of Lynn's reasoning...and in my case it's not necessarily even thinking outside the box...just genuinely trying to look with fresh eyes...

Incidentally, and dragging us back on thread, I couldn't agree more that Liz shows every sign that night of leaving Kidney, (or Kidney's "protection"), and moving on to pastures new...

Every good wish

Dave

[c.d.]

Thinking outside of the box and looking at things with a different perspective is all well and good especially if produces positive results. However, I must say on more than one occasion, I have detected a serious whiff of condescension directed at those who tend to take a more traditional view of the case. I am sure it was not intended but the smell is definitely in the air.

c.d.

[RivkahChaya]

I think we're maybe not all talking about the same thing when we talk about "thinking outside the box." The phrase comes from the solution to this puzzle:


Connect all nine dots with four straight lines, without lifting your pencil from the paper.

Usually, the dots are in a framework, and people assume, without being told so, that they have to keep their lines in the framework.

The analogy is really about tossing out your assumptions, not trying to come up with something wacky, like killer gorillas, or Masonic conspiracies.

Getting away from the chain of assumptions, that the women all were prostitutes --> therefore were soliciting when they met their killer --> therefore, this must this must somehow be relevant to the killer's motive or MO, or both, may be thinking outside the box, I suppose, only because it is so intrenched in the narrative in the first place, but it didn't need to be. I guess that last bit is just my opinion, though.