Cononical SIX?

[Patrick S]

I read this study a few years back (I'm sure it's been shared on this board before) and it completely changed my way of thinking about the case:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.22/pdf

The study is quite compelling, if not utterly convincing. Professionally speaking I'm a numbers/data guy. Therefore, this study seals the deal for me. Broadening the comparison to include 3359 murders over a fifteen year period demonstrates the rarity of JTR's MO, an MO that runs from Tabram through Kelly...and disappears, virtually forever.

At the very least a fascinating and worthwhile read. I look forward to discussion.

[Ally]

A). It's canonical.

B). If you are a numbers guy then you should have had the exact same question that I had which is, how does he explain the lack of his key signature characteristics in Stride and yet still include her? If he's going to go by signature, then he needs to strictly stick to that signature and he gives no explanation whatsoever as to why Stride, going strictly by signature should be included. "Oh he was interrupted." That's not a fact. That's an assumption that he makes to shoehorn her in. Is it possible, yes. Is it ascertained fact? No.

C) His "fourth" characteristics of the Ripper's signature, that the victims were left in the open (was he going to bury them???) and on display is just purely idiotic.

D) His fifth is likewise lacking in logic. Four and five both go together and indicate that the posing was deliberate which is purely speculative and assumes that the victims weren't just left as they were when the killer was finished. If they were in fact posed, based on a killer's signature, then they all would have been found in almost exactly the same position, not "roughly exposed on their backs with their legs open" Which happens to pretty much anyone who is murdered and then has their abdomens cut open. Chapman's arm was across her chest, Eddowes was not. No mention of whether Nicols was or not. The position of Chapman and Eddowes' legs are completely different. What evidence is there of posing other than that which naturally occurs when a dead person is splayed on their back?


Sorry. This guy is not convincing at all.

[Patrick S]

A). It's canonical.

Thanks. I stupidly hurried and relied upon spellcheck, which isn't applied to the title field.

B). If you are a numbers guy then you should have had the exact same question that I had which is, how does he explain the lack of his key signature characteristics in Stride and yet still include her? If he's going to go by signature, then he needs to strictly stick to that signature and he gives no explanation whatsoever as to why Stride, going strictly by signature should be included. "Oh he was interrupted." That's not a fact. That's an assumption that he makes to shoehorn her in. Is it possible, yes. Is it ascertained fact? No.

I don't think anything is presented as 'ascertained fact'. It is what it is - An analysis of the crimes based upon MO, signature, pattern, presenting statistical findings based upon a comparison of 3,300 homicide cases.

With respect to Stride, I think the evidence presented ("Her throat was deeply gashed and there was an abrasion on the skin about an inch and a quarter below the right brow. There was no sign of struggle. No murder weapon was found at the scene."; She was a prostitute; She was killed between midnight and 5am; Her throat was slashed while lying on her back from (her) left to right; She was killed two hours before Eddows who was mutilated demonstrating the killers psychological need to perform mutilations of the type seen by JTR, etc.

C) His "fourth" characteristics of the Ripper's signature, that the victims were left in the open (was he going to bury them???) and on display is just purely idiotic.

Many serial killers do bury their victims, take them away, murder them elsewhere and dump the body. Further, 'posing' of the body is a characteristic of all the murders minus Stride. It's a phenomenon present in many murders/serial killings (Black Dahlia, for example). The JTR victims lay where they died. No effort was made to move them, hide them in order to delay discover in order facilitate a less problematic escape. In my view, it's a valid point.

D) His fifth is likewise lacking in logic. Because a killer is what going to take the time to tidy up his victims? They both go together and indicate that the posing was deliberate which is purely speculative and not that the victims were left as they were when the killer was finished. If they were in fact posed, based on a killer's signature, then they all would have been found in almost exactly the same position, not "roughly exposed on their backs with their legs open" Which happens to pretty much anyone who is murdered and then has their abdomens cut open.

Again, we can respectfully disagree here. Actually, posing by serial killers is rarely identical or even consistent. I read a study a recently that compares posing by killers to artwork. Painters, for instance, do not paint the same thing over and over again.


Sorry. This guy is not convincing at all.

Well, it's a team of four people, two of which are women. Don't forget them.

As I said, it's at the very least compelling and interesting reading. As someone who was inclined to include Tabram (partly because I subscribe the the theory that JTR learned from his previous crimes and that the violence escalated) and Stride (I believe there is evidence that he was interrupted), it was enough to make me feel more confident in the views I already held. I don't expect that to be the case with everyone. But, I enjoy and appreciate a healthy debate.

Thanks.

[Ally]

With respect to Stride, I think the evidence presented ("Her throat was deeply gashed and there was an abrasion on the skin about an inch and a quarter below the right brow. There was no sign of struggle. No murder weapon was found at the scene."; She was a prostitute; She was killed between midnight and 5am; Her throat was slashed while lying on her back from (her) left to right; She was killed two hours before Eddows who was mutilated demonstrating the killers psychological need to perform mutilations of the type seen by JTR, etc.

And none of that is related to signature.

Many serial killers do bury their victims, take them away, murder them elsewhere and dump the body.

And please tell me how the average man in Whitechapel in 1888 would manage to spirit away the body and bury them or dump the body outside of town? We aren't talking about "many serial killers". We are talking about a murderer, most likely living in Whitechapel, the slum of the universe in 1888.

Further, 'posing' of the body is a characteristic of all the murders minus Stride. It's a phenomenon present in many murders/serial killings (Black Dahlia, for example). The JTR victims lay where they died. No effort was made to move them, hide them in order to delay discover in order facilitate a less problematic escape. In my view, it's a valid point.

And once again, please explain exactly how you envision this occurring in Whitechapel. Was he going to sling the bodies over his shoulder and look for a convenient place to hide them, walking through the streets with a dead woman over his back?

Again, we can respectfully disagree here. Actually, posing by serial killers is rarely identical or even consistent. I read a study a recently that compares posing by killers to artwork. Painters, for instance, do not paint the same thing over and over again.

And yet, the legs in the victims were different, the arms were different, the head positions were different. What exactly was the "posing"?? If you are going to claim posing, demonstrate the actual posing. Something other than what occurs naturally from victims falling where they were.

[Tom_Wescott]

I think too much credence is put into 'signature', which is another chestnut from the now largely discredited practice of serial killer profiling. Signatures exist, for sure, and are helpful in identifying a series. In other words, you might include a victim in a series based on signature, but you can't exclude one because the 'signature' is lacking.

John Douglas excluded a victim from the Green River killer's tally based on signature among other things. The body was 'dressed' with items, such as beer cans, which is something the GRK hadn't done before or since. Douglas concluded it was a copy cat murder. Upon Ridgway's arrest he fully confessed to that murder.

Regarding Tabram, if you isolate the medical evidence and compare it to that of Nichols and Chapman, it doesn't really add up. But when you look at everything OTHER than the medical evidence, it points to the same killer. The two sides of evidence just don't mesh. It's possible the murders are related but by different hands. Or maybe one killer who went from a stabber to a cutter. We're told that doesn't happen much, but maybe we've been told wrong.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Patrick S]

I think too much credence is put into 'signature', which is another chestnut from the now largely discredited practice of serial killer profiling. Signatures exist, for sure, and are helpful in identifying a series. In other words, you might include a victim in a series based on signature, but you can't exclude one because the 'signature' is lacking.

John Douglas excluded a victim from the Green River killer's tally based on signature among other things. The body was 'dressed' with items, such as beer cans, which is something the GRK hadn't done before or since. Douglas concluded it was a copy cat murder. Upon Ridgway's arrest he fully confessed to that murder.

Regarding Tabram, if you isolate the medical evidence and compare it to that of Nichols and Chapman, it doesn't really add up. But when you look at everything OTHER than the medical evidence, it points to the same killer. The two sides of evidence just don't mesh. It's possible the murders are related but by different hands. Or maybe one killer who went from a stabber to a cutter. We're told that doesn't happen much, but maybe we've been told wrong.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Good points. I appreciate the input, Tom. I don't disagree with anything you've said. Again, I view the study as something that simply reinforces beliefs that I personally already held based upon previously published theories. In my opinion, any and all research/study provides value.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Patrick,

If you're researching for the purpose of reinforcing beliefs you already have, then you're probably doing yourself a disservice. I'm less sure of a number of things now than I was 10 years ago, which tells me I probably jumped to some conclusions too early. I'm more sure of other things than I was 10 years ago, and that's because I let go of a number of preconceived notions and started looking at things more objectively.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[bigjon]

One of the main issues I can see is that the authors are trying to transpose a specific set of events and location to another, very different one.

As Ally has already stated, transport of a body would be a lot more difficult in an overcrowded, metropolitan slum in the 1880's compared to a big State in the 1980's which looks to be fairly rural.

There is also the evolution of murder weapons. The crimes they use as comparison list only slightly over 20%, so I wonder how much of the remaining 80(ish)% would be gun crime.


Patrick, you also seem to be confusing MO and signature.

[bigjon]

Or maybe one killer who went from a stabber to a cutter. We're told that doesn't happen much, but maybe we've been told wrong.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hey Tom,

Actually if we take Tabram to be an exploratory killing (possibly with some loss of control), then according to some researchers the change from stabbing to cutting could be considered a normal evolution and not all that rare.

Which is where we reach the problem in the field of "profiling" - the different researchers contradict each other constantly.

[Tom_Wescott]

You said a mouthful, Jon. No two profilers (unless they work together) agree on anything.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Patrick S]

And none of that is related to signature.



And please tell me how the average man in Whitechapel in 1888 would manage to spirit away the body and bury them or dump the body outside of town? We aren't talking about "many serial killers". We are talking about a murderer, most likely living in Whitechapel, the slum of the universe in 1888.

I was simply responding to your statement, "was he going to bury them???)". He could have lured the women into a carriage and carried them away, dumping them elsewhere. He could have throttled them and drug them ten feet away. He could have cut their throats and moved them a foot and half to mutilate them. I feel like we are going down the rabbit hole here. Point is, many things could have happened with each murder and did not.

And once again, please explain exactly how you envision this occurring in Whitechapel. Was he going to sling the bodies over his shoulder and look for a convenient place to hide them, walking through the streets with a dead woman over his back?

See above. I was simply saying the MO is that these woman died where they fell. Beyond that, they were not moved.


And yet, the legs in the victims were different, the arms were different, the head positions were different. What exactly was the "posing"?? If you are going to claim posing, demonstrate the actual posing. Something other than what occurs naturally from victims falling where they were.

I hope we understand that I'm not the first person to subscribe to the idea that JTR posed the victims. I think the placement of intestines outside the body might qualify. Some killers have been ashamed of their crime and have attempted to cover the wounds. JTR wanted them on full display. Maybe it was just the natural way of things after such a violent crime, as you say. I'm open to that. When that study is done, I'll ready it and post the link for more respectful debate.

Thanks.

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick,

If you're researching for the purpose of reinforcing beliefs you already have, then you're probably doing yourself a disservice. I'm less sure of a number of things now than I was 10 years ago, which tells me I probably jumped to some conclusions too early. I'm more sure of other things than I was 10 years ago, and that's because I let go of a number of preconceived notions and started looking at things more objectively.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I agree. I most certainly do not seek to simply reinforce believes that I already hold. In fact, I actively seek the opposite. I was simply stating that this particular study happened to push me in a direction in which I was already leaning. What makes this subject so compelling, and one that keeps me personally interested through the years is that fact that so much is unknown and can - in all likelihood - never be known.

[Ally]

I was simply responding to your statement, "was he going to bury them???)". He could have lured the women into a carriage and carried them away, dumping them elsewhere.

Carriage? People living in Whitechapel. Lousy with carriages they were.

He could have throttled them and drug them ten feet away.
He could have cut their throats and moved them a foot and half to mutilate them.

And moving them ten feet hides them ...how??

I feel like we are going down the rabbit hole here. Point is, many things could have happened with each murder and did not.

Possibly because you are just throwing out scenarios that show no understanding of the time period, the socio-economic status of the people living there or a familiarity with the streets. If the idea was that "he made no attempt to hide them" has any sort of merit, what possible merit does your suggesting he could have dragged them ten feet offer??? Why would he waste the time to drag them ten feet?

See above. I was simply saying the MO is that these woman died where they fell. Beyond that, they were not moved.

But the point was, your study, which you linked to, attempted to make a big whoopting do out of the fact that they were not moved. When there is no surprise whatsoever that they would not be moved. It is the expected, logical, and probable scenario. So there is absolutely nothing that can be read into the fact that they were not moved.

I hope we understand that I'm not the first person to subscribe to the idea that JTR posed the victims. I think the placement of intestines outside the body might qualify.

Might. Or it might count as he moved them out of the way to get to something else. And still, that was one body. The other "five"?

Some killers have been ashamed of their crime and have attempted to cover the wounds. JTR wanted them on full display.

An assumption not based on evidence. They weren't on full display except in two instances. Eddowes and Kelly. If he'd wanted them on "full display, he'd have rent the dress down the middle so anyone finding them could readily see what had been done. I can't remember if it was Chapman or Nicols, but with one of them no one knew they'd been mutilated til they arrived back at the morgue. So it cannot be claimed he wanted their wounds on full display.

Editing in to add my last sentence which wierdly, got chopped.

[lynn cates]

In donde estan?

Hello Patrick. Welcome to the boards.

Disappeared forever? What, no Alice and no Frances?

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

Carriage? People living in Whitechapel. Lousy with carriages they were.



And moving them ten feet hides them ...how??



Possibly because you are just throwing out scenarios that show no understanding of the time period, the socio-economic status of the people living there or a familiarity with the streets. If the idea was that "he made no attempt to hide them" has any sort of merit, what possible merit does your suggesting he could have dragged them ten feet offer??? Why would he waste the time to drag them ten feet?




But the point was, your study, which you linked to, attempted to make a big whoopting do out of the fact that they were not moved. When there is no surprise whatsoever that they would not be moved. It is the expected, logical, and probable scenario. So there is absolutely nothing that can be read into the fact that they were not moved.




Might. Or it might count as he moved them out of the way to get to something else. And still, that was one body. The other "five"?




An assumption not based on evidence. They weren't on full display except in two instances. Eddowes and Kelly. If he'd wanted them on "full display, he'd have rent the dress down the middle so anyone finding them could readily see what had been done. I can't remember if it was Chapman or Nicols, but with one of them no on

I could throw out a hundred scenarios and each can be ridiculed and used as ammunition for insults. I was simply attempting to highlight deviations from what DID happen by giving examples of things that DID NOT happen. I wasn't trying to argue their plausibility. I didn't intend for the examples to be dissected and used to imply that I'm a neophyte in need of education with respect to the socioeconomic conditions of the late 19th century East End.

And it's Nichols.