Kelly's Killer

[lynn cates]

verdict

Hello Caroline.

"I only recently appreciated just how close the murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were - despite these two ladies having far less connective tissue than subsequent victims."

Completely agree. So, what is the verdict? Are they by the same hand? If so, perhaps all the WCM were perpetrated by the same gang that was purported to have killed Smith.

Different hands? So then closeness does not guarantee sameness of hand.

(I did like your song, however. I must reciprocate some day--if I ever get clever, rare commodity for me these days.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

by reason of insanity

Hello Chris. Hmm, may not be Kelly's killer--doesn't look sexually insane to me.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

tippler

Hello David. Are you writing that whilst tippling from a cask of amontillado?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Which is why I think Kelly's murder was personal. It could have been the same guy, who had a different interest in his previous victims, but it was a different motive. Kelly was punished. Her genitals were pulped, her organs and skin arranged for display, he lips were cubed, her eyes intact and her heart taken. Sort of like all the ways "she done him wrong" were chopped up, placed on the table and under head, he left her eyes so she could watch him take his revenge, and took her heart because she should have given it to him in the first place. We had a less spectacular version of this a few years ago here. The only difference was that the abdominal damage was not as extensive as Kelly, and Kelly didn't have her fingers chopped off and her hands flensed. It may be totally different, but the possibility remains that this was a realllly pissed off suitor.

Hi Errata,

To be fair Kelly cannot really be considered in total isolation when we have Eddowes looking like another, all too recent case of 'personal' punishment. Whatever we think of a certain unknown diary author's work, I am always impressed with their suggestion that Eddowes lost her nose because it 'annoyed' her killer.

I still suspect that 'personal' only extended to the killer's immediately personal and urgent need or desire to punish the next female stranger he encountered in a reasonably private situation. Whether he killed them to punish womankind, or to punish a specific woman who had really pissed him off (but he dared not kill because he would be the obvious suspect), I doubt the evidence could tell us. But I don't see why it's probable that he knew Kelly personally, or had been pissed off with her personally, to do what he did to her - especially if he had most probably killed Chapman and/or Eddowes.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Well I should like to see a good bit more connective tissue than I have seen until now.

(By the way, what counts as closeness? 1 mile? 2 miles? 5?)

Hi Lynn,

I think if you had the chance to walk the sites regularly you would get a feel for the closeness of which I speak. Even after thirteen years of doing so myself, I only recently appreciated just how close the murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were - despite these two ladies having far less connective tissue than subsequent victims.

I think the Dry Bones song could be adapted to explain my own feelings on the matter:

The Smith one's connected to the Tab-ram (by geography and victim type)

The Tabram's connected to the Nich-ols (by timing, victim type and generally sensational nature of the crimes)

The Nichols connects to the Chap-man (by timing and victim type again, specific wounds)

The Chapman's connected to the Kelly job (by geography, victim type and wounds)

The Stride job's connected to the Eddowes job (by perfect timing and geography, victim type - as in 'unfortunate' - not to mention all the reasons why a mutilator would be unable or unwilling to succeed with the first and require the second)

Eddowes is connected to the Kelly job (by the personal touch and other wounds, and both being unfortunates)

And that's only for starters.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Prime Suspect

He doesn't look 6'7". but he is fairly thing, sort of a simian Peter Crouch.

Mike

[ChrisGeorge]

Prime Suspect

[DVV]

Hi Chris

Do you have any evidence that the letters were written by monkeys?
Chris

Must be The purloined letter in the rue Morgue.

[Wickerman]

Stride tells us he was instinctive and his desire to kill rendered his desire to escape of little consequence.

Stride only speaks to us about the Ripper if she was attacked by "Jack". Given this assault (if BS-man) was far and away different to all the others, then we can't be guided by any aspect of this single killing.

But, I suppose you have to factor in the value placed upon life in those times. Today, life is cheap in some countries with serious poverty issues. Perhaps in those days, a life at sea, for example, wasn't too far removed from a life in prison; and it follows thus any fully-functioning, non-lunatic, with a desire to kill, from the lower working classes, would have taken that risk. Although hanging is a different matter.

If he was a seaman the chances are very good that he stopped at other ports in countries where prostitutes were equally available, but in cities much less populated.
Why, if he was a sailor, would he only kill in the busiest city in the world?
Stories about the Whitechapel murders were known in every country. It was world news. If any similar murders occured anywhere else, and some did, they would automatically become headlines.
The counter-argument against the sailor is that very point.

He certainly took huge risks, which would suggest to me that he had little to lose or he was a lunatic.

A sane man simply does not do what "Jack" did, but the definition of "lunatic" is not a definition at all. "Lunatic" encompases a broad range of actions.
This kind of lunacy might not be readily observable in his day-to-day movements, but all murderers take risks, sane or not.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

going ape

Hello Chris. Cute.

But seriously, suggestion is a powerful psychological mechanism.

cheers.
LC

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Caroline. Well I should like to see a good bit more connective tissue than I have seen until now.

(By the way, what counts as closeness? 1 mile? 2 miles? 5?)

If you reread Mr. Evans' "Letters from Hell" you begin to get a feel for the power of persuasion--monkey see, monkey do. No letters; 1 letter; next, a deluge.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

Do you have any evidence that the letters were written by monkeys?

Chris

[lynn cates]

monkeying around

Hello Caroline. Well I should like to see a good bit more connective tissue than I have seen until now.

(By the way, what counts as closeness? 1 mile? 2 miles? 5?)

If you reread Mr. Evans' "Letters from Hell" you begin to get a feel for the power of persuasion--monkey see, monkey do. No letters; 1 letter; next, a deluge.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Well, isn't someone statistically far more likely to be killed by a one off than a serial killer? Shouldn't the assumption be that every murder victim is a solitary kill and let a preponderance of evidence put them in as a victim of a serial killer?

Sorry Errata, I owe you a response!

To be fair, the police at the time did look at each murder individually and they did investigate the men who were known to have associated with each victim. This is the way they had always worked and they didn't have the kind of experience in 1888 that might otherwise have led them to an 'assumption' that they were dealing with a phenomenon that would in the dim and distant future be called serial murder. Today, the police might be expected to fall into such a trap, but I still feel that if these murders had been committed over the last few weeks in a similarly small area, a serial killer would be behind most if not all of them. Unsolved murders like these have always been rare, no matter how many times we have heard people claiming they were ten a penny in that particular time and place.

I doubt the police back then were thrilled at the prospect of having to find a veritable needle in a haystack, ie if this was in fact a complete stranger preying on one unfortunate after another just for his jollies, as opposed to being able to haul in abusive partner after abusive partner and get relatively easy convictions.

I do wonder sometimes how much more connective tissue some people want to see before conceding that the murders of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly (at the very least) are terribly unlikely to have been the work of anyone but the individual who murdered Nichols. So soon after Nichols, statistically (to use your own word) one would not expect to see one similar but one-off murder, let alone three or more.

Time and place is everything here. The sheer closeness of these murders would be quite astonishing if unconnected.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Ok Lynn. I should perhaps say that the story that a thirsty Scot once said to a man on Death Row "You're in the chair" is a slander.

[lynn cates]

Who buys?

Hello Robert. I thought the correct Scots phrase was, "You're buying."

Cheers.
LC