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

[lynn cates]

narrative

Hello Rivkah.

"I suppose, only because it is so intrenched in the narrative in the first place."

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Rivkah.

"I suppose, only because it is so intrenched in the narrative in the first place."

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

I think it is intrenched for a damn good reason. What are the odds that several different killers showed up in Whitechapel over the course of a few short months and decided to cut the throats of prostitutes and then take out their internal organs? If this had occurred over the course of a year taking in all of London I would say that was a hell of a coincidence. But in Whitechapel in basically three months I would say the odds are not in favor of that happening. Not by a long ways.

My opinion only.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

look about

Hello CD. Thanks.

I pity an argument that has nothing but "What are the odds?" on its side.

I prefer looking at the knife work. Of course, to do that is to risk losing complacency.

As for multiple killers, well, unless you have one bloke killing ALL the WC cases, then OF COURSE there were multiple killers. The question is then, "How many?"

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

I think it is intrenched for a damn good reason. What are the odds that several different killers showed up in Whitechapel over the course of a few short months and decided to cut the throats of prostitutes and then take out their internal organs?

Whoosh.

[RivkahChaya]

I suppose, only because it is so intrenched in the narrative in the first place.

Precisely.

At the risk of stomping the analogy to pulp, I think we agree on the reality, we're just at odds at what equals "the box." I see this as more a case of people making a thorough search of the upper right corner, and ignoring everything else.

You know what else I think? If it weren't for the "double event" letter, the police would never have considered Stride a Ripper victim. The distance covered was difficult, and a lot of people would have probably come up with the same arguments we are coming up with now, that Stride clearly wasn't soliciting, and wasn't "ripped."

Moreover, the primary reason for labeling all the women prostitutes, I think, is "I am down on whores" in the Dear Boss letter. At that point, Nichols was known to be on the job, and Chapman was known to work as a prostitute sometimes, and to be doing something for money that night, so at that point, the letter was accurate, albeit, attributing the women's profession to motive probably wasn't.

But, if the Dear Boss letter was a hoax, then it has absolutely no relevance to the status of future victims. That MJK was a genuine pro was a coincidence-- and may have even led police to call her a Ripper victim when she wasn't. Even if the letter is genuine, however, it is not necessary that later victims actually be prostitutes, only that the killer think they were.

I pity an argument that has nothing but "What are the odds?" on its side.

Sing it, sister.

[lynn cates]

quite

Hello Rivkah.

"Moreover, the primary reason for labeling all the women prostitutes, I think, is "I am down on whores" in the Dear Boss letter. At that point, Nichols was known to be on the job, and Chapman was known to work as a prostitute sometimes, and to be doing something for money that night, so at that point, the letter was accurate, albeit, attributing the women's profession to motive probably wasn't."

Just so.

(Will Brother do as well?)

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Moreover, the primary reason for labeling all the women prostitutes, I think, is "I am down on whores" in the Dear Boss letter.

Just so.

If you want a little "outside the box," or whatever you want to call it, thinking, how about we dispense with all information that originates with the letters?

No one but Nichols was known for certain to be soliciting that night, no one but MJK considered herself a prostitute by profession, there was no "double event," and whether or not the women can be in any way considered prostitutes has no relevance to their status as victims, for starters.

[c.d.]

I pity an argument that has nothing but "What are the odds?" on its side.

Then maybe we need to go back and take a hard look at the escaped gorilla theory.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

yes

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

You'll get no argument from me.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

gorilla warfare

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Then maybe we need to go back and take a hard look at the escaped gorilla theory."

Well, there's a thought. Couldn't a gorilla be a solo sexual serial killer? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

Since it seems that you are not swayed by a what are the odds argument can you cite to similar circumstances where a number of women in a small geographic location had their throats cut and organs removed over a three month period? Not being smart ass here but it would seem that if this type of behavior was widespread by a number of different individuals we would see a lot more of it.

c.d.

[RivkahChaya]

I pity an argument that has nothing but "What are the odds?" on its side.

Then maybe we need to go back and take a hard look at the escaped gorilla theory.

c.d.

There's a universe of difference between 1 in 1,000,000, and 0 in 1,000,000.

I don't remember what you example was, at any rate, but it was something a lot more likely than 1 in 1,000,000. Things that are statistically unlikely still happen, and asking after they happen, whether they could have happened is frivolous, because clearly they did.

[c.d.]

Hello Rivkah,

Yes, but the point is that we don't know for a fact that there was more than one killer and the odds would certainly be against it. So from my perspective, arguing multiple killers has a high odds threshold to overcome right off the bat and I don't see any significant differences in the killings to help that argument climb the mountain.

My opinion only.

c.d.

[Sluggo]

The Facts....

Hi All,
I have been reading through the numerous comments, and it has given me a lot of food for thought on my various theories.

I have this to say though...
We can speculate, theorize, and make educated guesses, but we have only the FACTS to truely rely on.

---5+ Murdered Women.
---1 or more Unknown assailants

Remember: It's not what is known. It's what can be proven.

Debb C.

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Rivkah,

Yes, but the point is that we don't know for a fact that there was more than one killer and the odds would certainly be against it. So from my perspective, arguing multiple killers has a high odds threshold to overcome right off the bat and I don't see any significant differences in the killings to help that argument climb the mountain.

My opinion only.

c.d.

Where did you take statistics? I'm trying not to be rude, but you can't cram your perspective, and a term like "odds threshold" (which is really a gambling term, I think) into the same sentence.

I don't know that we have enough data to determine what the odds of multiple killers are, so we can't say they are high or low, and at any rate, even if they are high, that may be why this bit of history is so engaging. Maybe it is an extraordinary convergence of circumstances, and that's why there are so many movies, and message boards, and books devoted to it.

Or maybe not. If one killer found Whitechapel in the 1880s attractive, maybe another did as well; some cities, or areas might be magnets for certain kinds of crime so while in general it might be unusual for more than one killer to be active in an area, the reverse might be true of specific areas.

There are examples of false attribution of multiple crimes to one person, mainly because the police had a task force, and just went murder --> task force. Police in Boston now believe that at least two people were responsible for the killings referred to as the work of the "Boston Strangler." (Albert DeSalvo confessed to them as a condition of a plea agreement that spared him the death penalty, but he was never actually convicted of them), and one victim was probably actually the victim of domestic abuse.

Then, copycat crimes are a well-known phenomenon; one of the more disturbing aspects of the death penalty is the fact that there are frequently copycat crimes on the night the sentence is carried out. If one of the C5 is a copycat, does that make it easier for you to think there could be more than one killer?