Mary Kelly's men

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;371969]

Quite a few factors actually cd.....there are

Hi,

Just because you see no indications of entry without consent that does not mean there was consent. There is no source that indicates that Kelly "allowed the killer to enter her room".

If you actually believe there is, please point out that source to us.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Yes, this is a good point. We're not entitled to assume that Kelly voluntarily let the killer into her room. Her assailant could have gained entry by the simple expediency of putting his hand threw the broken window and manipulating the latch, i.e. whilst Kelly was asleep.

[John G]

I agree.



Correct.

Regards, Pierre

Thank you, Pierre. We are in accord!

[John G]

Always considered Chapman and Eddowes murders to have more in common than Chapman and Nichols personally

I agree!

[John G]

John,

There are very few serious students who cannot see the similarities across the board with Polly and Annie. MO, Victimology, double throat cuts, abdominal pm mutilations,....all are virtually identical. The eventual extraction of organs is likely due to the more secluded venue, not a different killer. They are the murder models for the killer that everyone calls Jack.

Now, your premise about killers who mutilate being rare....I would agree, but I would also add that at least one of the so-called Ripper victims was not mutilated, and 2 were mutilated in a fashion inconsistent with the wounds inflicted on Polly and Annie...as per the investigating physician for those 2 priors. Perhaps when you cite modern studies you might want to include studies about killers who set out to kill but not mutilate, then mutilate anyway. Some to dispose of the remains, some do so on a spur of the moment urge. And some might well do so to confuse investigators....like I propose some of the Canonical wounds were.

The signature you refer to in these cases has to be the double throat cuts, and abdominal mutilations. Do you seriously suggest that the wounds Mary received were in any way reminiscent of the earlier murders?

Im afraid that the assumptive position taken by many contemporary investigator and modern theorists about a serial killer has clouded the facts of the individual cases...because back then, and right now, we have victims that have no discernible connection by killer, and as such should be treated as individual murders. Your assumptions and others are fine, but the fact is that no evidence has ever been presented to suggest a serial killer of more than just 2 or 3 of the unsolved murder cases.

Jack the serial killer is as much an unproven myth today as it was then.

Michael,

Double throat cuts do not constitute a crime signature. Crime signatures are factors such as posing, overkill etc. In any event the throat cuts you refer to may not have been specifically intended; and even if they were, we're not entitled to assume that a serial killer would repeat such actions ad infinitum.

Regarding consistency. It seems obvious that Eddowes was mutilated in a very similar way to Polly and Annie, and the more extreme violence evident in the Kelly case can be explained by evolution of signature as the "killer progressed accross a continuum of escalating violence" (Keppel et al, 2005). And, of course, with Kelly the killer was not under time pressures, as he was with the other victims, so had much more time with the body.

You seem to be of the opinion that serial killers remain extremely consistent, therby falling into to error. Signatures can, and do, evolve, whilst remaining "behaviourally and thematically consistent." (Schlesinger, et al., 2010). In fact, Schlesinger identified much greater signature evolutions than are evident in the Whitechapel murders: One serial killer's signature ritual progressed from postmortem genital mutilation to dismemberment! See :http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.long

[packers stem]

Always considered Chapman and Eddowes murders to have more in common than Chapman and Nichols personally

[Errata]

True, but if you want to start cutting the nose (and face) is a good place to start as you don't have the impediment of clothing.

c.d.

Sure. The most given reason for cutting off a nose it because it sticks out. And it does. Maybe it violates a certain sense of symmetry. Maybe its that you can hold on to it while cutting it off. There are many reasons to cut off a nose. Most of them pretty banal in the grander scheme of things. Certainly cutting off the nose obscures the lower half of the face. That might be important before disemboweling someone.

What it isn't is an accident. That took a little bit of work.

[Michael W Richards]

Come on, Michael. There are interstate murders that the police were able to link to Ted Bundy, and he certainly didn't stick to the same MO. But you think that a group of women violently murdered and mutilated in a few months, in a square mile, were the act of multiple killers because of some slight discrepancies in technique?

Why did Bundy change MO Harry? Because he knew modern investigators grouped murders based upon repetitive occurances and activities...BTK, theres an example..and thats how they discover serial killers exist in the first place. Is the man who killed Polly and Annie someone we might assume is in control of himself, or overly concerned about being discovered? He killed out in the streets, or in near daylight in a backyard where 17 people lived.

I believe its provable that many killers lived near enough to that single mile to be considered, and we also know that someone created Torsos, before and after the so-called Ripper.

[Michael W Richards]

OK, so if you think it was another murderer who killed Kelly, then we can forget about the others in this case. But what are the reasons to do so?

The extensive mutilations on Kelly can be explained by the fact that the killer was indoors. That is a better explanation than the idea of another killer, since there are similarities between the mutilations on Kelly and the others. If someone postulates another killer, or more than another one, you get at totally different theory and can forget about a "Jack the Ripper".

Then one should also be so kind as to explain the choice of such presumptions.

Regards, Pierre

1 similarity. Stomach flaps. Something that was published after Annies murder.

Id forget about a myth anyway, since 127 years of serial speculation has solved none of these cases.

[Harry D]

Come on, Michael. There are interstate murders that the police were able to link to Ted Bundy, and he certainly didn't stick to the same MO. But you think that a group of women violently murdered and mutilated in a few months, in a square mile, were the act of multiple killers because of some slight discrepancies in technique?

[c.d.]

Ok then......serial killer proof...none. Varied injuries and methods and victims and locations....verified.

Hello Michael,

I do worry for the health of your rotator cuff. Patting yourself over and over again can not be good for it.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

"So...serial killer proponents can creatively discuss why he changed what he did, how he did it, why he changed MO, and why he changed Victimology....(which are questions that do not have answers in hard evidence), while I continue to pursue answers that address the differentials in hard evidence format."

Well, keep us posted on the outcome of those pursuits.

c.d.

Ok then......serial killer proof...none. Varied injuries and methods and victims and locations....verified.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Pierre;371969]

Quite a few factors actually cd.....there are

Hi,

Just because you see no indications of entry without consent that does not mean there was consent. There is no source that indicates that Kelly "allowed the killer to enter her room".

If you actually believe there is, please point out that source to us.

Regards, Pierre

In fact the last person seen with Mary, and therefore one of the primary suspects, was allowed in. Actually there is no source that suggests an entry that was not allowed either. And no source that suggests a forced entry. Private room, undressed, back turned to her killer before her attack, all suggest someone she knew...ergo, someone who would be allowed in. The call out at 3:45 might well be that event..her being woken to sounds at the door and allowing the entry of whomever was there. Both windows and her door were locked from the inside, the door could be set to lock automatically upon closure, but that implies the person leaving knew that spring latch functionality.

You also have the layout of the room working against an unauthorized entry, because she would have woken, and woken neighbours, if someone entered her door or her window. They could not have got to Mary to silence her before she could call out...and the call out at 3:45 was not followed by any noise.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

Well, Polly's killer could certainly be said to have changed his motive and method if it's assumed that he also killed Annie, i.e. he started removing organs. In fact, based upon your approach, you might as well say that out of Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly it is Nicholls who is the odd one out, i.e. no organs targeted. In fact, the two victims most closely linked by motive are Chapman and Eddowes, i.e. the uterus was targeted both times.

I think a far more straightforward approach is therefore called for. The simple fact is that, as I noted earlier, killers who mutilate, but do not rape, their victims are incredibly rare. The chances of there being two or more such unconnected individuals, operating over a few short months and within the same small geographical area, is so astronomically unlikely as to be hardly worth considering.

You refer to modern profiling techniques. Well, they were applied to the Whitechapel murders by Keppel et al, 2005, and all of the C5 plus Tabram were linked by signature characteristics.

John,

There are very few serious students who cannot see the similarities across the board with Polly and Annie. MO, Victimology, double throat cuts, abdominal pm mutilations,....all are virtually identical. The eventual extraction of organs is likely due to the more secluded venue, not a different killer. They are the murder models for the killer that everyone calls Jack.

Now, your premise about killers who mutilate being rare....I would agree, but I would also add that at least one of the so-called Ripper victims was not mutilated, and 2 were mutilated in a fashion inconsistent with the wounds inflicted on Polly and Annie...as per the investigating physician for those 2 priors. Perhaps when you cite modern studies you might want to include studies about killers who set out to kill but not mutilate, then mutilate anyway. Some to dispose of the remains, some do so on a spur of the moment urge. And some might well do so to confuse investigators....like I propose some of the Canonical wounds were.

The signature you refer to in these cases has to be the double throat cuts, and abdominal mutilations. Do you seriously suggest that the wounds Mary received were in any way reminiscent of the earlier murders?

Im afraid that the assumptive position taken by many contemporary investigator and modern theorists about a serial killer has clouded the facts of the individual cases...because back then, and right now, we have victims that have no discernible connection by killer, and as such should be treated as individual murders. Your assumptions and others are fine, but the fact is that no evidence has ever been presented to suggest a serial killer of more than just 2 or 3 of the unsolved murder cases.

Jack the serial killer is as much an unproven myth today as it was then.

[c.d.]

Is he flailing about like an octopus at a rave? Noses are hard to cut off. The same consistency as a stalk of bamboo, which is hard to accidentally sever with a wild gesture. Not that it has some grander meaning in the cosmic scheme of things, but barring an industrial accident, and probably lots of alcohol, one does not accidentally cut off a nose.

True, but if you want to start cutting the nose (and face) is a good place to start as you don't have the impediment of clothing.

c.d.

[Errata]

Or could it be even simpler.

That when a knife is slashing around n the semi dark by a maniac in a rage anything could get cut.

Is he flailing about like an octopus at a rave? Noses are hard to cut off. The same consistency as a stalk of bamboo, which is hard to accidentally sever with a wild gesture. Not that it has some grander meaning in the cosmic scheme of things, but barring an industrial accident, and probably lots of alcohol, one does not accidentally cut off a nose.