The Grisly

[lynn cates]

delusions

Hello Colin. Yes, I get your idea.

My best reply notes that I am not an adept with mental illness. That said, you might also point out that, before he was denounced by Drs. Cowan and Crabb, he entered a house in Holloway (Eltham rd--likely a typo for Elthorne), but when the murders were discussed, he bolted. Was he aware that he had killed?

My least bad answer is that delusions come and go and change rapidly. Hence, he may have been aware of his behaviour at some level; not at others. But beyond that, I cannot go.

And at times, he would declare himself very wicked.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

The Butcher

Hello Michael.Thanks.

"do you attach some significance to the two twin-slashes in themselves, or merely as fingerprints linking the first two canonical killings?"

I think they indicate a butcher who:

1. Administered a smaller cut to sever the left common carotid artery in order to bleed the "animal"

and

2. A much longer/deeper gash in an attempt to decapitate in order to sell the head at market.

Such a person would need to be a butcher, both violent and delusional who, however, let slip some of this information.

(I included this in my "Ripperologist" article. May be mistaken but NEVER contradictory.)

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

If the killer was a deluded butcher (JI) who thought he was killing beasts, why did he (seemingly) go out of his way to avoid being seen? If he was suffering from such a delusion, would it not follow that he thought he was doing nothing wrong and acting perfectly normally? If he knew he was doing something wrong, surely he can't have been that deluded? I'm not sure I worded that very well (been trying to remove a virus from the wife's laptop all evening!) but you hopefully get my drift.

Regards, Colin.

[Cogidubnus]

Unconvinced and on the fence

Hi Roy

You see, I'm not convinced Eddowes was actually soliciting at the time of her death (though she may've been) and I'm damm nearly sure Liz Stride wasn't...In fact I think the latter thought she was on a date with someone who'd change her life (alas she was, but not the way SHE thought)...

And was MJK killed by someone she picked up earlier and brought home...or not...we just don't know do we...not really...we just assume because of the earlier victims...and we all know that assume just makes an ass out of u and me...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

New Independent Review

Hello Dave. Thanks. May have a piece in Don Suden's "New Independent Review" soon.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

Keep up the good work...seriously I'm looking forward to parts ll, lll & lV...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

I salute you, as well.

Hello Roy. Thanks.

"Victimology - all of the vicitims were the Unfortunates of Whitechapel - Smith through Coles. That's the victimology I mean."

If by "unfortunate" you mean poor, I will agree. (Unless, of course, MJ had monies of which I am unaware.)

"All were out at night, whether they were soliciting or not."

Depends on your definition of night. Could be that Annie was slain after sunup.

"They were out there on the public streets. Mary Kelly was an active prostitute, but may have been caught in her room, which was sort of a trap."

But this is to say, they were on the streets, except for those that weren't. Of course, I agree.

"Geography - all the murders happened in the same area."

Alright, I ask again, what counts as area? One square mile? Two? Five? London? England? (And I am not being frivolous here.)

"Time- - all the murders were at night."

But see Annie Chapman above.

"The cause of death was cut throat for seven of the victims. Nichols through Coles. (correct me if I'm wrong)"

If this "sexual serial killer" had shot one, would that be a big deal? Could one not argue, "Well, was Jack a robot? Could he not shoot someone?"

"Any variations of strangling, lack of mutilation in the Stride case etc, well, is that such a big thing? Since they were all murdered the same way."

Maybe, maybe not. You see, the whole idea of "serial killer" comes about from similarities. Could there be a big difference? Sure. But then the similarities upon which the initial theorising came about, gets jarred.

"Colin found the historical record and shared it. How in that year 1888, the very rare occurence of Women murdered in England by cut throat went up just like the number of murders. I don't understand how under age 20 has any relevance, Lynn."

My point is that I found some cases where a boy was cut and laid open like Annie and Kate. But he is excluded. I found another young lady done to death. But she was under 20. So she was also excluded.

"I think you fellows have set out on a Herculean task. To prove that it was not a serial killer. And for that I salute you. I'm not knocking you at all and I enjoy these conversations with you."

Same here. I love to discuss issues and you are a rare chap who takes none of it personally. You and I can discuss the issues and not be upset.

But from my point of view, the hardest part of my job is to gently deconstruct firmly ensconced views. It was EXTREMELY difficult in my own case.

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks for the replies, gentlemen.

Victimology - all of the vicitims were the Unfortunates of Whitechapel - Smith through Coles. That's the victimology I mean. All were out at night, whether they were soliciting or not. They were out there on the public streets. Mary Kelly was an active prostitute, but may have been caught in her room, which was sort of a trap.

Geography - all the murders happened in the same area.

Time- - all the murders were at night.

The cause of death was cut throat for seven of the victims. Nichols through Coles. (correct me if I'm wrong) Any variations of strangling, lack of mutilation in the Stride case etc, well, is that such a big thing? Since they were all murdered the same way.

Colin found the historical record and shared it. How in that year 1888, the very rare occurence of Women murdered in England by cut throat went up just like the number of murders. I don't understand how under age 20 has any relevance, Lynn.

I think you fellows have set out on a Herculean task. To prove that it was not a serial killer. And for that I salute you. I'm not knocking you at all and I enjoy these conversations with you.

Roy

[lynn cates]

theories

Hello Roy.

"The victimology, the geography, the same times at night, the similar methods of death and mutiliation all point to one killer. Colin Roberts' research showing the statistical abberation that year in Women murdered by cut throat in England."

If I thought that correct, I might jump on the bandwagon. However:

1. Victimology. Our notion is this, roughly, Polly and Annie were soliciting, hence, so also Kate. Merely an assumption that she was soliciting based on the other two.

2. Methods of death and mutilation. How similar? We KNOW that Polly and Annie were strangled. The others? We now (if I recall properly) hold that they were strangled, but without the signs. Why? To get a fit.

3. Colin's analysis excluded some groups. For example, women under 20 had no place there.

Conclusion, there could have been a serial killer in Whitechapel, but it looks a good bit like the "facts" following a theory, rather than a theory following the facts.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

Simple and easy to understand, agreed, but not necessarily true.

Statistics are merely an exercise in pin-sticking.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Roy,

What exactly is it about the authorised version [JtR did one, did the lot] which convinces you it is true?

The victimology, the geography, the same times at night, the similar methods of death and mutiliation all point to one killer. Colin Roberts' research showing the statistical abberation that year in Women murdered by cut throat in England.

So its the simplest, easiest to understand solution. A serial killer.

Roy

[lynn cates]

butcher

Hello Michael. Thank you for that.

In general, I think you are right about it. Most times, when JI popped up to an unfortunate and asked for money, she either fled (if young and spry enough) or else forked over, say, 2d. I highly doubt anyone followed him.

But, as you recall, both Polly and Annie were highly impaired--one falling down drunk, the other terminally ill. I think both were in a state of misunderstanding what JI was about until tragically too late. I think he lashed out in his frustration (at his wife, whom he blamed for his situation) and strangled them. Then he did that which a butcher would do, given he had just overcome a sheep.

That he later claimed he was selling sheep heads at market is obviously grist for my mill.

Cheers.
LC

[Henry Flower]

Thanks for the reply Lynn.

All of which leaves me wondering how someone in such an extreme state of delusion (mistaking humans for cattle - and always vulnerable female humans, of course) could possibly have persuaded a female to accompany him down the passage into the backyard.

Even at the best of times, in an east-end not already shocked by the murder of Nichols, Isenschmid was a sufficiently frightening chap that few women would've entered that passageway with him, willingly, especially during one of his psychotic episodes?

I don't mean to sound argumentative - your Ripperologist article made me think anew about the killings in a way that few other articles ever have. For some reason it really lodged itself in my head in a very compelling way.

[lynn cates]

butcher

Hello Michael.Thanks.

"do you attach some significance to the two twin-slashes in themselves, or merely as fingerprints linking the first two canonical killings?"

I think they indicate a butcher who:

1. Administered a smaller cut to sever the left common carotid artery in order to bleed the "animal"

and

2. A much longer/deeper gash in an attempt to decapitate in order to sell the head at market.

Such a person would need to be a butcher, both violent and delusional who, however, let slip some of this information.

(I included this in my "Ripperologist" article. May be mistaken but NEVER contradictory.)

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

Tell me something.

What exactly is it about the authorised version [JtR did one, did the lot] which convinces you it is true?

Regards,

Simon

[Henry Flower]

Lynn, I'm quite prepared to agree with you - that the twin throat cuts in the first two canonicals are seemingly not random. But let me push you a little: what are they, then?

Are you simply saying that they form a type of signature that links those two murders (and not the others) together, or have you in mind some other more definitive meaning to the two cuts in themselves? We've locked horns on this question once before and I was rather sarcastic, which I subsequently regretted, because you deserve more respect than I showed you. So let me ask you now - do you attach some significance to the two twin-slashes in themselves, or merely as fingerprints linking the first two canonical killings?

After all, it's an odd thing, physically. I'm not sure a 'false start' is quite credible second time round. Especially given the uninhibited vigour with which Chapman was gutted. Do you suggest the twin cutting is the sort of thing that muscle memory or long practice might have ingrained in the perpetrator?