Tabram and Kelly?

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.

[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

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

[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?

[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

"And missed others that he also definitely committed!

They did the same with Sutcliffe and missed vital chances to catch him much sooner because the evidence they were working with was much more limited.

As long as we're aware of the possibility of complete red herrings, why not keep a wary eye on all the other cases which might fit. With plenty of examples from other cases it's madness to discount them completely."

Lets put it this way Ally, are there better victims with which to asses The Rippers habits and signatures than with Polly, Annie and Kate?...they match in almost every aspect of their attack and mutilations...and they are all considered "Canonically" Jacks victims...so why not just start with the three that match each other the most?

Before unsupported interruption theories include another victim...making that double night uncharacteristically like Jacks work just by doing so, his only 2 victim evening.....or travesties like Mary Kellys murder are added, quite dissimilar in many respects to prior "Ripper" attack signatures and methodologies...cant we just use victims we can be almost certain were killed by the same man by the existing evidence?

If the Ripper killed those three....what can be learned about him? How does that potential killer profile data then change when you add a failed attempt due to his timing? And how is it again changed when the meeting, the venue and the attack doesnt match those three very similar murders?

He becomes less "cunning"...a word used by investigators to describe him, by adding a murder he cannot complete due to his sloppy choice of kill location and timing,...and he becomes wildly unpredictable when he moves indoors suddenly, and exceeds all prior attributed acts and damage in a private setting.

So....what happened to the potential profile of the man that killed Polly, Annie and Kate? Where did he go? If nothing else he was a mutilator of womens abdomens....did he change that focus? Is there evidence that he did? Where is he in this new profile?

He disappears as a result of the addition of lesser likely kills. That killer was still out there when Liz and Mary were killed, but he had little in common with the profile of the Ripper after including Liz and Mary Kelly. What would adding Martha then do to the equation?

Its created a Butterfly Effect ...(as an aside, is this originally a Chaos Theory term?)......on the whole investigative perception, then and now.

Cheers Ally.

[Grabbit]

BTK stood for Bind-Torture-Kill, because they investigated crimes that showed that progression if you will.

And missed others that he also definitely committed!

They did the same with Sutcliffe and missed vital chances to catch him much sooner because the evidence they were working with was much more limited.

As long as we're aware of the possibility of complete red herrings, why not keep a wary eye on all the other cases which might fit. With plenty of examples from other cases it's madness to discount them completely.

I really like the charts idea, but with wider parameters. I see no harm in seeing what the other cases can potentially add to the evidence pool.

In all honesty Michael I think you're giving yourself an impossible handicap. Take the 3 good cases as a starting point, not a limit.

Cheers and take care.

Ally

But doesn't that mean our understanding of serial killers has changed rather than that serial killers have changed?

Personally I prefer to use the known evidence from serial killer cases than any of the interview evidence. The thing that serial killers seem to have in common, (apart from the obvious) is that they tell lies. Lots of lies.

Take care.

Ally

Hi Ally, Ben,

I think for myself one issue with using the data accumulated by interviewing convicted "serial" killers and then applying the learned data from them to these cases is this.....there are no "serial killer" rules.

They differ in motives, styles, weapons and death counts for one thing,...and none provide a basis for an assumption that all serial killers kill differently or for different motivations within a known or assumed "spree".

BTK stood for Bind-Torture-Kill, because they investigated crimes that showed that progression if you will.

I submit Jack The Ripper should be similarly viewed barring contrary data. In that, he followed a process that to a large extent, was the same with each victim....and "Ripping" was a part of each of those.

Using that as a barometer,....I can only see 3 Canonicals that should be considered likely the same killer, and one that can only be the same killer if he has almost completely broken down mentally at that point.

Cheers m'lady....and lads.

[Grabbit]

Hi Ben,

Often using as you do, serial killer interview results obtained from men already caught and captured alive...in the modern era.

But doesn't that mean our understanding of serial killers has changed rather than that serial killers have changed?

Personally I prefer to use the known evidence from serial killer cases than any of the interview evidence. The thing that serial killers seem to have in common, (apart from the obvious) is that they tell lies. Lots of lies.

Take care.

Ally

[Ben]

I think this demonstrates Ben that if anything, we have some cause to consider shrinking a probable death count rather than expanding it

I think what you've done instead, Mike, is highlight the consistencies between the victims that resemble eachother most closely. That's an excellent starting point, but it's certainly not a reason to exclude any victim that doesn't conform to those acute consistencies, and for several crucial reasons:

1) Serial killers generally aren't as robotically consistent as popular perception dicates. If he was responsible for only those three, he'd be very unusual indeed in contrast to the majority of serial killers.

2) The serial killers who can claim a few markedly consistent ones are invariably responsible for others too.

3) Very few serial killers commence their careers with a ready-polished technique with all their fantasies prepared meticulously in advance. More commonly, their methods will be more exploratory in nature, and their early crimes will bear little resemblance to their later ones.

All these factors and others would lead an experienced investigator to strongly consider Tabram as belonging to the same series.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Mike,

I'm not suggesting we should necessarily "assume" Tabram to have been a ripper victim. I've only been cautioning against overconfident exlusions of certain victims based on perceived differences, since we know that most killers are capable of a far greater criminal range than Tabram-to-Nichols.

All the best!

Ben

Ive made sort of rudimentary charts of what I feel are the most identifiable and likely relevant investigative details...

...victim profile-location-time-circumstances-attack methodology-weapons (s) used-murder technique-postmortem mutilation activity-evidence left by killer-signs of egress from murder scene....

... concerning the alleged Ripper murder victims and some non-Ripper ones, and I found that there was an inordinate number of "hits"...indicating likely killer matches... on 4 women....one being non-canonical.

And in those 4 cases, some physical and circumstantial evidence is present that has nothing to do with murder, a weapon or a probable technique or even motive. Its not just how and what he did to kill them..or just after that...its also how he leaves a crime scene in terms of physical properties. For example....Things assuredly or probably from the victims that are left by their bodies.

There is chaff in the wheat known as The Canonical Group as is....Im not for adding more to that group until these five womens murder evidence has been sifted more thoroughly...or appraised more accurately based on evidence alone.

On evidence alone, there are 3...maybe 4 Canonicals that could loosely be attributed to one killer,... one in addition to the more obvious 3 victims associated is possible...and if so with some very troubling variants present and circumstances that do not match the others.

I think this demonstrates Ben that if anything, we have some cause to consider shrinking a probable death count rather than expanding it....based solely on what can be proven at this very moment...meaning for example, that Liz's killer was in fact interrupted....an assumption that has absolutely no supporting real evidence.

Time for a smokes run....see you in a bit Ben, all the best.

[RonnieKray]

I personally couldn't agree with you more Ben.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I'm not suggesting we should necessarily "assume" Tabram to have been a ripper victim. I've only been cautioning against overconfident exlusions of certain victims based on perceived differences, since we know that most killers are capable of a far greater criminal range than Tabram-to-Nichols.

All the best!

Ben

Hi Mike,

That's true, but what's lacking is any indication that it was used to suffocate or strangle her. Conversely, it appears that suffocation may well have played a role in Tabram's death, and when you say "Attacked and Subdued without knife use-neither", you may well be as incorrect as I suspect you to be, at least with regard to Tabram. We simply don't have enough evidence to make the determination that the knife was the first point of contract between Tabram and her killer. No organs were taken from Tabram, true, but nor were any extracted from Nichols.

We're bound to encounter difficulties when we fine-tune a serial killer's methods to encompass only the specific components you believe to have been essential. If theorists applied that logic to other serial cases, they'd be arguing that the slightly less consistent victims didn't fall afoul of the same serial killer, despite conclusive DNA evidence proving that they did. If history has taught us anything is that it is better to assume more diversity on the part of an uncaptured serial killer than it is to assume rigidity. If Jack were only responsible for Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, I'd be utterly astonished, and it would certainly make him a rarity among serial offenders in terms of robot-like consistency.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Valid counters, but I submit this....the answer is not in the wounds but the actual motivations for killing. Something we cannot know at this time.

So to include murders at this stage that do not adhere to patterns demonstrated in other alleged killings is allowing for behaviours that are not visibly present in the existing details, they are therefore merely assumed ones. Often using as you do, serial killer interview results obtained from men already caught and captured alive...in the modern era.

It is well within the bounds of reason to wonder if one man perhaps had some specific goals, by a consistent trail of similarly dispatched and savaged women.

Cheers mate.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

The part I highlighted above and some of what follows is extremely subjective,...in fact there is some evidence that would support that Liz was very probably grabbed by her scarf

That's true, but what's lacking is any indication that it was used to suffocate or strangle her. Conversely, it appears that suffocation may well have played a role in Tabram's death, and when you say "Attacked and Subdued without knife use-neither", you may well be as incorrect as I suspect you to be, at least with regard to Tabram. We simply don't have enough evidence to make the determination that the knife was the first point of contract between Tabram and her killer. No organs were taken from Tabram, true, but nor were any extracted from Nichols.

We're bound to encounter difficulties when we fine-tune a serial killer's methods to encompass only the specific components you believe to have been essential. If theorists applied that logic to other serial cases, they'd be arguing that the slightly less consistent victims didn't fall afoul of the same serial killer, despite conclusive DNA evidence proving that they did. If history has taught us anything is that it is better to assume more diversity on the part of an uncaptured serial killer than it is to assume rigidity. If Jack were only responsible for Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, I'd be utterly astonished, and it would certainly make him a rarity among serial offenders in terms of robot-like consistency.

All the best,
Ben