The Grisly

[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

[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. 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

[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

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

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

Statistics are merely an exercise in pin-sticking.

Regards,

Simon

[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

[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]

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

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

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

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]

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

[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.

[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

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Cog. What exactly do you think Eddowes was up to at 1am in a dark alley if not street walking? And exactly how many 'life-changing dates' do you think Liz Stride was able to squeeze in during the last 2 or 3 hours of her life?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Henry Flower]

Similarly Undecided

Dave, I'm not sure this fence can hold the weight of the both of us, and I was here first. Besides, if Mr Cadosch sees us up here he'll report us both

When I weigh up the probabilities I'm inclined to think we're dealing with a single killer. Lynn and Simon - highlighting the differences that do exist in the victims and in the details of the killings is fair enough, and I do agree that all assumptions should be challenged (or at least examined) always; but that said, had Peter Sutcliffe never been caught I'm sure you could use precisely the same minor variations to challenge the assumption that there was one man behind the soubriquet 'The Yorkshire Ripper'. Why would a man who routinely murdered haggard middle-aged prostitutes suddenly kill a beautiful innocent 16 year old girl? Or a college student? Why was one of the bodies moved and mutilated days after the murder, but none of the others? Why were some bodies hidden while others were left publicly displayed? Why were some masturbated over, while others were not? Etc.

But I no longer feel dogmatic about it. While I think it likely, for the reasons Roy states, that one man carried out these attacks , I also accept that just because it's likely doesn't mean it was necessarily the case.

And that's largely Lynn's fault, for writing such a compelling paper on Isenschmid. I don't know why it should have been a revelation at all, but it was: the curiously compelling idea that at least some of those women were killed not by a criminal mastermind with split-second timing, but by - yes - a disordered lunatic with a big knife! Go figure! A lunatic with a knife - the sort of figure so obvious and so crude that the mind almost rejects it out of hand as being insufficiently impressive a solution. But a solution so darned obvious, it might well be true.

Thank you Lynn, for your excellent work, and for being gracious in the face of my previous rudeness.

Michael