Victim Conversation (off-topic moved)

[Fisherman]

"Surely you can understand the frustration this seems to have caused a number of other posters, particularly since your stance isn't exactly a popular one?"

Let´s just hope that that Jack´s identity, when found, is popular enough for everybody...!

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Stop being a bigmouth, Fish. I wasn't insulting Michael. He knows how he posts and what I said is true for others, not just him. In fact, I'm not among those who have been commenting about him lately. I've caught plenty of crap myself for stuff I've posted over the years, so I'm qualified to talk to Mike. Since he has now become frustrated by the situation, I thought I'd point out the root cause.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Michael,

With all due respect, you've been rather obsessed with your anti-C5 theory for some time now, and it seeps into everything you post on all threads. Surely you can understand the frustration this seems to have caused a number of other posters, particularly since your stance isn't exactly a popular one?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

I know seem like Im propagating a theory, but in fact what Im reacting to are "stories" about what may have transpired here or there based on the Canonical mentality. People are using the Canonical Group as the "defacto" Ripper tally and then supposing this or that based on the profile of the man that would have killed those 5 women in those varied ways. i.e......3 different ways within the 5 deaths. One with Polly, Annie and Kate, one with Liz, and Mr Playful in room 13.

There is no uninterrupted pattern of behavior that fits all 5 deaths by one man, particularly when anomalies devoid of any traditional Ripper methodologies or traits are included in the group.

There is no proof that the man that killed Polly or Annie changed what he did 1 iota going forward, there are only deaths that have been guessed at as being Ripper murders happening after ones that surely were, using the premise that he changed.

I understand that many people dont like the idea of going back and re-building their theories using a different victim total and a less flexible Ripper profile, but I can say that traditional thinking about the murders based on Canonical lines has in my opinion, been fruitless.

Someone has to pose these questions here, and it seems its a cause that Ive been left to try and move forward pretty well on my own.

There were other men aside from Jack that slit and stabbed women with knives during that same year,(non-Canonicals), there were other serial killers active that same Fall, (one Torso of 2 found in 1888, the second in 89), there were alleged Ripper victims that are Canonicals that were not "ripped" nor nearly "ripped" at all, and there is continuity within the alleged series that can be held up to a critical review....Polly, Annie and likely Kate met their killer, were overpowered by their killer, cut by their killer and opened by their killer in almost identical fashion.

I cant understand why that is illogical analysis to some.

Thanks for the thought Tom, best regards.

[Tom_Wescott]

Michael,

Surely you must know that most of us have put a great deal of thought into this case, including into the notion that Jack didn't kill all 5 women. Or that he killed MORE than 5 women. In fact, many of us were perusing this long before you found the Casebook. So none of this is new. The simple truth is that most of us have not found reason to conclude that Jack didn't kill Stride or Kelly. Can we prove it beyond doubt? Of course not and neither can you, since to do so would mean we had our man.
It's perfectly reasonable to say you don't think Jack killed all 5 women. I'm not 100% convinced he did myself. But to assume we haven't given it as much thought as you have is rather condescending, and I think that your blindness on this topic and your passion for it leads to some (perhaps unintentionally) condescending remarks that a lot of the senior posters here feel they don't deserve.
Check me out being mister introspective!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Very reasonably stated Tom. Regarding the following statement:

"There is no uninterrupted pattern of behavior that fits all 5 deaths by one man, particularly when anomalies devoid of any traditional Ripper methodologies or traits are included in the group."

I would like to add that the the sample size is too small to draw crtain conclusions as to what you seem to be defining as "traditional Ripper methodologies". You cannot take 5 murders, or 3, or whatever... and then infer what the Ripper always does in every murder. Crimes are opportunistic, and often the characteristics are based as much on environment or other factors outside the control of the killer as they are on the killer's methodologies.

For example.. say I flip a coin and it comes up heads. Then I flip it again and it comes up heads. Is it then appropriate to conclude "Flipping this coin will ALWAYS be heads". No, of course not.

Yet, some ripperologists exclude Stride and Kelly for similar reasons. "Oh, the Ripper ALWAYS kills outdoors." "The Ripper always performs mutilation." "The Ripper was always silent and stealthy and would never attack a woman in the street", etc. We cannot make these assumptions. The sample size is too small. If the Ripper had killed 100 women, and in every case the murder was outdoors, then the argument would be stronger. As it is, we should expect aberrations and differences in each murder.

Foe example, I think you asked "Why" in the Stride murder did the Ripper choose to cut the throat less deeply. The answer is simply... who knows? Who knows what happened? Maybe the Ripper panicked and was rushed, since he had just been caught in the act by Schwartz. Maybe Stride fought back? Maybe he slipped? Who knows? There could be a thousand reasons.

There is absolutely no reason why all the Ripper's murders need to be "nearly identical." They just need to be similar enough that the character of the crimes is essentially consistent. If the Ripper did kill all the 5 canonic victims (as I personally believe) then the differences in the 5 murders must remain (unfortunately) attributed to various unknown factors. We may infer what these factors are (as many have), but they still remain unknown. What actually happened in any murder may be inferred, but such inference is based on the scantest information... the only one who could explain what actually happened is the killer himself. Everything else is speculation.

RH

[Sam Flynn]

There were other men aside from Jack that slit and stabbed women with knives during that same year

What happened to Kelly could hardly be reduced to mere "slitting" or "stabbing", Mike - and that's the issue.

Polly, Annie and likely Kate met their killer, were overpowered by their killer, cut by their killer and opened by their killer in almost identical fashion.

But they weren't - if one wants to be fussy, there were rather different approaches used, and rather different outcomes to the mutilations, in each case. The elephant in the room is that Polly, Annie and Kate each had their bellies cut open, the latter two having internal organs cut out, as did Kelly. This rare and extreme behaviour is one of the main reasons why we cannot "play down" what happened to her.

So, Kelly was killed in a room - but the other three (or four) were each killed in quite different locations, and under different conditions of time, weather, and privacy.

[perrymason]

What happened to Kelly could hardly be reduced to mere "slitting" or "stabbing", Mike - and that's the issue.But they weren't - if one wants to be fussy, there were rather different approaches used, and rather different outcomes to the mutilations, in each case. The elephant in the room is that Polly, Annie and Kate each had their bellies cut open, the latter two having internal organs cut out, as did Kelly. This rare and extreme behaviour is one of the main reasons why we cannot "play down" what happened to her.

I would agree with most of the above Sam, but the differentiators would be that I believe as did the respective attending physicians did, that Polly's killer and Annie's killer were most likely after their uterus, its why he killed them. To what end, I dont have any idea Id be willing to defend to the end, but if that was the case then it could mean that 2 "rare" abdominal mutilators, or more, were operating in that same small theater. I think there are plenty of factors that might explain that phenomenon....including men appearing to have the same blood lust but not with the same objectives. And also a man or men who might want to cover their own acts of violence.

Anarchists of all kinds would have reveled in this I think....and we have all sorts in that square mile, and I think its possible 1 or more deaths may not be randomly acquired victims...and even perhaps commited to capitalize on the atmosphere in the East End.

To Tom and Robhouse, I believe over the years Ive been consistently deffering to much more advanced knowledge than my own here and have referred to members as having sound intellect and illustrious careers with great respect for their work and logical arguments, but that respect doesnt translate to a willingness to suspend my own belief in my interpretive skills and instincts and to just defer to the "experts" opinions.

I know many people here have decades in this, countless hours of research and review, and I have always shown my respect for that, but if you will allow this analogy....

If you are given a picture from a boat in a bay of a tranquil seaside resort in Portugal, with a huge magnificent sailboat in the centre of the frame, tied at the wharf with charming cafes and restaurants set back off the wharf lining a street.....and that is all you are given to rate the quality of the resort in your opinion,... tranquil and lovely might easily be your take on it.

If you knew that on the other side of the boat... and out of your view... there is police tape surrounding the ship's gangplank and bodies strewn all over the wharf, with SWAT on site, and Investigators bagging evidence.....what would your opinion of the resort be then?

How do you know whether that is happening? You look on the other side of the boat and see.

I dont think many even very serious people have truly embraced a Non-Canonical Ripper Tom to any large degree, perhaps partly for fear of reprisals from peers, an ousting from the academic community, a purely scientific review of evidence...I think as a non-professional in the field, less experienced, but also less jaded and not fearful of any rejection or resistance as an "insider" would be, I can ask questions or pose ideas that most of you likely feel you couldnt or wouldnt to your peer group. But in terms of serous researchers putting in print theories that do not include all 5 Canonicals as likely or even probable .....how many books have there been like that?

Well...Im not a peer,....Im a friend to some members as they are to me and I enjoy the discussions and getting to know their experienced views, but Im just a student, ...I can take those stretches.

Best regards and Bon Soir tous mes amis....(if thats correct, apologies to my french speaking friends.)