Tabram and Kelly?

[Ben]

Jacks victims...so why not just start with the three that match each other the most?

Indeed, Mike, we should start with those three, but why finish with them when we know perfectly well that most serial killers are capable of much greater criminal diversity even if Tabram was a victim of the ripper? The fact that Tabram-to-Nichols would be considered so insignficant a change in contrast to the "changes" most serial killers are capable of utterly compells us to avoid the trap of ruling out all but the most consistent murders.

cant we just use victims we can be almost certain were killed by the same man by the existing evidence?

No, we can't.

Because if we did that with the vast majority of serial killers - i.e. ruling out all but the most consistent in their series - we'd be incorrectly ruling out most of the victims in their series, all because we fell into the trap of trying to restrict a killer's technique too much. If the ripper killed only "those three" he'd be one hell of an implausible robot-like oddity in the annals of serial crime, but I don't think he was that much of an oddity, chiefly because I believe he was responsible for more murders and certainly more attacks.

If his profile changes by including the possibility or more victims, so be it, but it would certainly be the more prudent assumption in light of what we know of serial offenders.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sox]

Everyone makes mistakes, anyone can change their mind, Serial Killers are not automatons. The best step forward is to look at the crimes and to stop thinking about the killer.

Remember that you are faced with MORE than three murders here, that if these crimes are not linked then you have....how many madmen running around the East End at the same time? The East End is may well have been a place of deprevation, but are we to seriously consider that not ONE of these men would have been caught? That not one single person in those districts had ANY idea who any of these men were? If we seriously consider that Tabram, Stride & Kelly were all killed by different men, then we have a total of FIVE depraved killers roaming the East End of London in as many weeks.

A pattern in a series of killings can be inturupted, it can change, it can vary. So ask yourself a question, were there five killers in the East End during the Autumn of Terror? Not one man was arrested, charged and convicted of any of these murders, or indeed the ones that followed Kelly. Of course the cynics will say 'well the police were only looking for one killer' and while that may be true, the course of any investigation leads down many roads, to many suspects. So are we to believe, of ALL the women suspected of being Ripper victims, that their killers were all different men, and that all those men went free? That not a single clue or witness, in any of these cases, led to a killer?

Or is the simple answer that one man killed them all?

[perrymason]

Everyone makes mistakes, anyone can change their mind, Serial Killers are not automatons. The best step forward is to look at the crimes and to stop thinking about the killer.

Remember that you are faced with MORE than three murders here, that if these crimes are not linked then you have....how many madmen running around the East End at the same time? The East End is may well have been a place of deprevation, but are we to seriously consider that not ONE of these men would have been caught? That not one single person in those districts had ANY idea who any of these men were? If we seriously consider that Tabram, Stride & Kelly were all killed by different men, then we have a total of FIVE depraved killers roaming the East End of London in as many weeks.

A pattern in a series of killings can be inturupted, it can change, it can vary. So ask yourself a question, were there five killers in the East End during the Autumn of Terror? Not one man was arrested, charged and convicted of any of these murders, or indeed the ones that followed Kelly. Of course the cynics will say 'well the police were only looking for one killer' and while that may be true, the course of any investigation leads down many roads, to many suspects. So are we to believe, of ALL the women suspected of being Ripper victims, that their killers were all different men, and that all those men went free? That not a single clue or witness, in any of these cases, led to a killer?

Or is the simple answer that one man killed them all?

Hi Sox,

That logic can also be used against you.....how likely is it that 5 men were involved in the Canonical Group? Not very, I agree. I see evidence that suggests a multiple murderer. But how likely is it that of the 13 or so women that were attacked and have at least been considered as possible Ripper victims were killed by one man? Not very...I think you would agree.

So we have evidence right there that is logical and reasonable that a man or other men were attacking prostitutes with a knife or knives concurrently with Jack's assumed period of activity.

When I can be almost positive that there were other killers doing similar acts to similar people at the same place in time....I can feel fairly safe only gathering the murders that have striking resemblance to each other in detail under one killer. When you know there are multiple styles of killers, why bundle dissimilar acts under the same "Ripper" man?

Opening people and taking things sets a killer apart from all others. These are Unicorns.

Cheers Sox

[Ben]

I can feel fairly safe only gathering the murders that have striking resemblance each other in detail under one killer

That would be an admirable outlook were it not for the "only" bit, Mike.

Start out by assessing the ones that strikingly resemble eachother, yes, but decide that he can't have been responsible for any others? Nuh-uh.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

That would be an admirable outlook were it not for the "only" bit, Mike.

Start out by assessing the ones that strikingly resemble eachother, yes, but decide that he can't have been responsible for any others? Nuh-uh.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

All Ive decided is that some murders dont match what I see in three, possibly consecutive, murder victims. But Im open to reviewing new evidence anytime.

All the best my friend.