Mary Kelly's men

[Errata]

I was just reading a brief on a killer who had one of his murders blamed on Bundy, and another on Ridgway. Weirder things apparently happen.

[Abby Normal]

I was just reading a brief on a killer who had one of his murders blamed on Bundy, and another on Ridgway. Weirder things apparently happen.

Who?

Yeah, but did he try to plan it that way? No.
My point stands. I think? Hehe

[Pcdunn]

Not a deliberate copycat murder, see Jane Beadmore's

Hi PCdunn
if someone was going to imitate the ripper murders, wouldn't they target her uterus? as with both previous victims?

and taking the heart? wouldn't that symbolic organ point to an ex lover?

besides, copy cat murders are the stuff of Hollywood movies. In the annals of crime there has never been a case of a copy cat murder where the killer tried to implicate (through imitation) another specific killer.

Hello, Abby,

I suppose some of my thinking on this was inspired by Alan Sharp's article, available in Dissertations, titled "The Ripper Victim that Wasn't: Jane Beadmore", which has also sparked my interest in how the newspaper coverage of the Whitechapel Murders affected people not otherwise concerned with them.

Jane was a young woman in a mining town, far from London. She broke up with her young man, and he attacked and killed her with a knife, inflicting on her injuries similar to those of the "Ripper's" victims. He left her body lying in the open countryside and lit out to another town.

Eventually he was tracked down and arrested, but not before police officials from London had come down to see Jane's body. The young man's explanation for his deeds was that he had been reading accounts of the latest Ripper murder in the paper and had just felt compelled to attack Jane in a similar way.

I doubt his intent was to copycat the Ripper to the extent people might think the urban killer had shifted areas, but it does seem to me that his blaming the newspaper is not unlike our public discussions about the influence of the media and entertainment on criminal violence.

To get back to poor Mary Jane, suppose her killer was somehow "compelled" to mutilate her body in a fashion similar to the other victims, yet wasn't trying to emulate the Ripper's work perfectly? Indeed, why should he, when he has his own passions to work out, and the privacy to do so? It could explain the far different skill level displayed in earlier Whitechapel murders.

[Pcdunn]

Hi,

Yes, thinking out of the box is good. But how many times do we have to read about the similarities between the murders to understand that the similarities indicate one serial killer?

Regards, Pierre

I don't know, really, as it seems as if I have also read frequently here and in the Press Reports section that the similarities may well be imagined, or at least overstated. It is confusing.

[John G]

Are you being serious or obtuse? Im gobsmacked when someone challenges madness as a likely motivator for those 2 deaths. If he killed strange women so he could open their abdomens....like the evidence reads...then psychological isues are the only reasonable conclusion for a motive. What they were,.... I dont care. Im not a psychiatrist and am not in this study to pretend I can analyse an unknown killer from 1888. If he wanted the uterus he took from Annie, if he wanted to cut Pollys abdomen...and that was the goal...as it seems it was....then most traditional murder motives are not applicable.

I believe JtR was most likely a psychopath, like most serial killer's, therefore not mentally ill.

[John G]

Modern physicians didnt see any Canonicals in death, they saw notes...like Bond did, so.... as I said, Ill defer to the contemporary physician who saw 4 of 5 in death. Phillips linked the first 2 by wounds, dismissed Stride outright and suggested Kates killer lacked skill and knowledge seen in the first 2. I said he saw 4, not 5.

Before you and others summarily dismiss the opinions rendered by distinguished contemporary men I would prefer to see evidence that their abilities to judge the wounds were impaired or suspect.

Frankly I could care less what data you want to use from modern serial killer investigations or posters on this site, because as I said, many many times...and its indisputable.....NOT ONE MURDER HAS BEEN LINKED TO ANOTHER BY KILLER WITHIN THE CANONICAL GROUP. Clearer?

Well, as the killer targeted Chapman's uterus, but not Nicholls, I guess,based upon your logic, we can rule these murders out as being linked to the same killer-obviously different motive, different killer!

I'm not sure what you mean about "distinguished contemporary men". Dr Phillips, for instance, was a local GP working in a poor London district. Moreover, modern forensic pathologist he was not: he therefore lacked the necessary qualifications on the relevant discipline, so it's quite proper to challenge his conclusions. For instance, why do you say they Chapman's killer was skilful, when he removed the intestines to access the uterus? This is something even a butcher would realise was unnecessary.

And where does Dr Phillips ssy that Eddowes was not killed by the same perpetrator who killed Chapman and Nicholls? In fact, the evidence strongly suggests the contrary. For instance, he gave this opinion the McKenzie murder:

"After careful and long deliberations, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely anatomical and professional grounds, that the perpetrator of all the "Whitechapel murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilation..."

[John G]

As a further note, I would point out that, according to Swanson's report, Dr Phillips was of the opinion that, in respect of Eddowes, there was "no evidence of anatomical knowledge in the sense that it evidenced the hand of a qualified surgeon, so that the police could narrow their enquiries into certain classes of persons."

So there you have it. Dr Phillips was not saying that Eddowes killer was less skilful than Chapman's; he was merely trying to narrow down the list of potential suspects and, in this regard, he didn't think Eddowes killer to be a qualified surgeon. However, happily, he didn't say that Chapman's killer was a fully qualified surgeon either, merely that there were "indications" of anatomical knowledge. In fact, as I've noted before, it would be odd if he had arrived at that conclusion, as there was no reason to remove Chapman's intestines to access the uterus: something even a butcher would know, let alone a qualified surgeon.

And, as Dr Phillips comments following the McKenzie murder demonstrates, whatever provisional conclusions he had arrived at, upon further reflection he clearly believed all of the "Whitechapel murders" up to Mackenzie to be linked.

[Harry D]

Could someone give me an example of a string of similar murders, that turned out to be committed by more than one killer (not working together)? In the overwhelming number of cases, they end up being tied to one guy. Take the small geographical area and the distinctive nature of the murders themselves, and I don't see how anyone can seriously propose that these were the work of multiple killers.

[John Wheat]

Could someone give me an example of a string of similar murders, that turned out to be committed by more than one killer (not working together)? In the overwhelming number of cases, they end up being tied to one guy. Take the small geographical area and the distinctive nature of the murders themselves, and I don't see how anyone can seriously propose that these were the work of multiple killers.

Yes but Harry the Canons were probably committed by VanGough, Sickert, Dr Barnardo, Crossmere and Jill the Ripper all working independently of each other.

Cheers John

[Observer]

Hey John

You missed out The Fenians, Isenschmidt, and the proprietors of 19 Cleveland Street.

[Errata]

Who?

Yeah, but did he try to plan it that way? No.
My point stands. I think? Hehe

Some guy I ran into while reading murderpedia front to back. I was pursuing other things at the time so I don't remember the guy really, just the story. I can probably find the name if it's important, though I doubt it is.

And you are right, he didn't. At least in the blurb I read he didn't take any credit for cleverness on that. Just acknowledging dumb luck. On the other hand it did sound like he was aware of other killers at the time, so it didn't sound like it surprised him that it happened.

I'm with you, in that I don't think someone did something against their nature in order to frame a known killer. Now did someone do something they always wanted to do, hoping they might get away with it because of a known killer? Maybe. That's not a copycat, and it's not a frame. It would be considered a lucky coincidence by that second killer. A fortuitous convergence of events. It would have happened anyway, and perhaps was in no way influenced in style or timing by the Ripper, but it does provide an extra layer of security for a one off killer.

I can see the possibility. I don't see proof.

[c.d.]

In order for a copycat killer to hope that his murder will be blamed on Jack, the police would first have to know who the Ripper was, i.e., Bill Jones. Without a name attached to the Ripper the Ripper could be anyone in the eyes of the police so being a copycat in that instance would be of zero use in possibly throwing off the suspicions of the police.

c.d.

[John Wheat]

Hey John

You missed out The Fenians, Isenschmidt, and the proprietors of 19 Cleveland Street.

They committed the non canonical Whitechapel murders.

Cheers John

[Rosella]

A murderer killing someone they had always wanted to in the hope that it would be regarded as a Ripper killing would have to make darned sure that they did get away with it. Being caught in the act or traced later could very well end not just at the end of a hangman's rope but being charged with four or more other killings.

[Harry D]

A murderer killing someone they had always wanted to in the hope that it would be regarded as a Ripper killing would have to make darned sure that they did get away with it. Being caught in the act or traced later could very well end not just at the end of a hangman's rope but being charged with four or more other killings.

Exactly. As if some guy is going to hang around in the middle of a public street, mutilating a woman and tearing her organs out because he wants to throw-off the police. No, if he's doing that, it's because he's a violent deviant who gets his jollies from butchering women. And like you said, if this copycat gets caught, which he could at any moment, then in all likelihood he's going to the gallows for the other murders as well.

Me doth think Mr. Richards has been watching too many movies.