Why Ada?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But it isn't a tiny minority, Fish."

It is in fact ................per cent! Fill in the correct amount, Ben, and I will listen!
I think you will end up as lofty as the word "tiny" is.

"The "more often than not" thing is irrelevant".

THAT is an interesting wiew, discussing statistics, I´d say!

Ben, you are doing this very much your way! Listen to this qoutation:

"What we do instead is look for behavioural traits that we know from historical precedent"

I suggest that historical precedent tells us that in lots and lots of cases, in fact "more often than not", serial killers have refrained from injecting themselves in investigations. And I also humbly suggest that heaps of these killers would have stood a chance of conning the police - had they chosen to give it a try. Since they did not, they urge us to take this fact into consideration every time we suggest that a serial killer may have done so.

No matter how unique a killer Fleming was - if it WAS him - he lived in a world that offered and offers us serial killers to investigate, and the statistics we collect about them are always - always! - applicable to any general discussion concerning serial killers.

You work from a presumption that tells us that IF Hutch was Fleming, and IF he did the deed, and IF he heard about the inquest, and IF he was alarmed by the possibility that he had been spotted und so weiter, und so weiter... And viable though it may be, it is still just a theory of yours, and therefore we should try and avoid to fall into the trap of ruling out statistics or anything else that may go against your thinking - it belongs to the discussion - at least as long as I´m discussing it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

...which is why I suggest that of all the accounts I have read about serial killers, a very tiny amount of them have actively injected themselves in ongoing investigations.

But it isn't a tiny minority, Fish.

If it was a tiny minority, the people with actual expertise in the topic wouldn't lay traps to (successfully) snare offenders after predicting that behavioural trait. It is also depends on individual circumstance, and whether or not the offender ever found himself in that sort of predicament. The "more often than not" thing is irrelevant, since there is no serial killer on earth whose behavioural patterns and idosyncracies all fall into the "More often than not" catergory. What we do instead is look for behavioural traits that we know from historical precedent and expert knowledge crop up with noted frequency.

There's no such thing as an "average" serial killer, and if there was, it's irrelevant for determining how many inject themselves into their investigation since we don't know how many found themselves in a "Hutchinsonian" type predicament in the first place. If we wanted to get ultra nitty-gritty, we'd need to determine how many serial killers did find themselves in such a predicament, and then discover how many of those inserted themselves under false pretences.

Until then, it's safer to leave "statistics" out of this. Whatever my thoughts may be on your scavenger theory, it has nothing to do with statistics.

Back to Ada.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Ah, I wouldn't agree with that reasonong at all, Fish."

I´m amazed, Ben! Really?

"No serial killer is in allignment with MOST others in everything they do. Instead, you have to register behavioural traits that hold true for am appreciable percentage of them."

...which is why I suggest that of all the accounts I have read about serial killers, a very tiny amount of them have actively injected themselves in ongoing investigations. Since it is a trait that is sometimes there, it stands to reason that the police will keep an eye open for such things, but let´s face it - it´s not as if it is something that happens more often than not, is it?

"As Frank pointed out, the majority of serial killers don't start out as scavengers, nor do the majority suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, but you don't rule out Fleming on that basis."

No. And I don´t rule out the possibility that Fleming masqueraded as Hutch - I just say that my gut feeling tells me that he did not and statistics say that the average serial killer (they exist in the statistical world, Ben, though perhaps not in the real one) does not inject himself in the ongoing investigations of his own crimes.

Furthermore, I avoid allowing only for things that bolster statistics, since I have a sneaking feeling that not all serial killers read "The statistical Handbook of Serial Killers traits" before they set about their killing.

You may call my thoughts on a scavenging Ripper statistically implausible if I may call your thoughts on a masquerading Fleming the same. Sort of.

The best!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

But did Napper know any of his victims personally, as Hutch claimed to know Mary Kelly who, like Ada Wilson, was attacked in her own home?

Difficult to say at this remove in time, but I think the operative word as far as Hutchinson is concerned in "claimed" (...to have known Kelly). Strictly speaking, we don't know how true that was.

I think you have to be careful about grabbing hold of elements from the Napper case that would appear to support your ripper theory if there are also elements that are in stark contrast

Well, pursuant to the observation I just made to Fish, not every detail needs to be similar in order for some form of congruity to be recongnised. I was chiefly highlighting Napper's preferred approach of loitering for prolonged periods outside the victim's flat, surveying the scene before striking, and suggested a similarity with the wideawake man.

That comparison doesn't become invalidated on the grounds that he didn't inject himself into the investigation, not least because that's situation specific. I suggest that Hutchinson came forward because he found himself in a predicament that could occasion such behaviour. If Napper was never in that type of predicament, the issue of pre-emptive action is rendered moot. He was seen attacking people, yes, but he was hardly likely to come forward on that basis.

My point about the trophies is that a killer with no fixed abode, who had to make do with a packed lodging house as and when he was in funds, would have known beforehand that he had next to no chance of enjoying any spoils undisturbed.

Significantly, the Victoria Home boasted the facility of private "cabins" (more like cubicles, really) which enabled any killer ensconced therein to marvel at his trophies without being seen. But if he had cannibalistic designs upon the organs, again, he wouldn't have been disturbed because, with hundreds of other men cooking and eating their meat goodies, he wasn't doing anything conspicuous or unusual. He would have been enjoying privacy the only way possible for an impoverished nonentity: hiding in plain sight.

Now back to Ada.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

But it would be careless not to mention the fact that statistics are on my side big time too - the average serial killer will not go to the police and inject himself into an ongoing investigation.

Ah, I wouldn't agree with that reasonong at all, Fish.

In relation to the number of serial killers that we know about, the killers who do "inject themselves into an ongoing investigation" must comprise a significant percentage or else the investigating authorities would not actually predict that outcome and lay traps to snare uncaught offenders by anticpating that very strategy. Besdies which, the number of serial killers who do come forward is dependent upon the predicament they found themselves in. If there were no incriminating witness sightings, there'd be no reason to resort to that strategy unless they were just in it for the thrill and bravado.

In any case, it's impossible to make any progress in the ripper case if you rule out any activity that runs contrary to that of the "average" serial killer, because there really isn't any such thing. No serial killer is in allignment with MOST others in everything they do. Instead, you have to register behavioural traits that hold true for am appreciable percentage of them.

As Frank pointed out, the majority of serial killers don't start out as scavengers, nor do the majority suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, but you don't rule out Fleming on that basis.

I have nothing much against a suggestion that there may have been other attacks before the Tabram slaying, but I don´t think we can point to a single attack, radically different from what was evinced later on, and say that - for example - the Wilson incident was exactly what we could expect from a fledgling Ripper.

It isn't radically different.

The first attempts of other serial killers will very often be radically different to later ones, and will often include a completely different weapon and victim-type. I suggest that Wilson seems the ideal candidate for the ripper's faltering early steps because it involved a knife to the throat, and an apparent attempt to inveigle his victim under a false guise. That isn't radically different at all. That's pretty similar. The only difference is the scale of the attack and the level of experience evinced by it. None of this should be remotely surprising if the killer was operating five months before he did the others.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

One of the most interesting aspects to have emerged from the Napper investingation is the fact that he used to stalk his victims outside their homes for prolonged periods, conducting prior surveillance before seeking the opportune moment to strike. That piqued my curiosity, having formed the impression for some time that the killer gained access to Miller's Court this way. It perhaps obliges us to take Lewis' loiterer more seriously, and by extension, anyone who claimed to be that individual.

Hi Ben,

But did Napper know any of his victims personally, as Hutch claimed to know Mary Kelly who, like Ada Wilson, was attacked in her own home?

I think you have to be careful about grabbing hold of elements from the Napper case that would appear to support your ripper theory if there are also elements that are in stark contrast, eg this supposed one-off stalking of a close associate, followed by the decision to face the cops with a cover story after several successes killing complete strangers, whereas Napper was conspicuously absent on at least two occasions when the police called round, and then failed to show up despite messages left for him to contact them.

My point about the trophies is that a killer with no fixed abode, who had to make do with a packed lodging house as and when he was in funds, would have known beforehand that he had next to no chance of enjoying any spoils undisturbed. It's one thing being able to cook and eat bodily parts, or fondle the rings etc in his pockets, under the noses of his fellow lodgers. Maybe that would have been enough for him. But it could have been a compromise that the ripper would never have made, especially if the trophies were his compensation for having so little time alone with the victims.

Now we had better get back to Ada!

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Frank writes:

"I hope you don’t mind me butting in. "

Never did - never will!

"Although the above is true, that doesn’t mean that therefore the chances are very slim that it’s true in this case. Not that I’m inclined to believe that GH was JtR (that not being on account of those statistics), but I keep the door to that possibility ajar, if you will."

Of course, Frank, it can be reasoned that every case should be judged by it´s own merits. And Hutch´s entrance on the stage does raise questions, there is no doubt about it. Therefore, much like you, I don´t close any doors. Though I am having all sorts of trouble to buy Hutch as a disguised Fleming, I can´t say with any certainty that it didn´t happen.

"I don’t think that there have been many serial killers in the last 150 years who started out as scavengers (and were caught). In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever read about any. So, I’m afraid that statistics certainly aren’t on your side in this instance, Fish."

Of course I´m at a statistical disadvantage here, Frank! Then again: each case on it´s own merits applies here too, and history will not be littered with potential eviscerators ho have had opportunities served on golden plates, will it? It stands to reason that such a thing will be extremely rare, but the lack of serialists ho have been scavengers at one time or another probably owes a lot more to the scarce opportunities offered than to any lacking willingness of the potential killers to take advantage of such situations!
And if we are to seek out the perfect opportunity, it will be hard to beat the Tabram case - it may have taken place in a very public spot, and we know that two different blades were used. I really think it has the possibility of a scavenger deed written all over it. Statistically probable or not, the circumstances are so odd that it has failed to find an explanation that covers all aspects in as credible a manner as does the scavenger angle, I feel!

The best, Frank!
Fisherman

[FrankO]

But it would be careless not to mention the fact that statistics are on my side big time too - the average serial killer will not go to the police and inject himself into an ongoing investigation.

Hi Fisherman!

I hope you don’t mind me butting in.

Although the above is true, that doesn’t mean that therefore the chances are very slim that it’s true in this case. Not that I’m inclined to believe that GH was JtR (that not being on account of those statistics), but I keep the door to that possibility ajar, if you will. After all, the simple fact of the matter remains that we do have a man here who loitered close to a crime scene and probably close to the time a murder was committed. And we do have a man who could very well have been that loitering man and who came forward with a story that wasn’t your average witness account, to say the very least.

The fact that I don´t feel any need to have a predecessor to Tabram lies in the fact that I think that Jacks role in the Geaorge Yard deed may well have been that of a scavenger, and as such, there are implications that he did not strike until this opportunity offered itself.

I’m not sure, but I don’t think that there have been many serial killers in the last 150 years who started out as scavengers (and were caught). In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever read about any. So, I’m afraid that statistics certainly aren’t on your side in this instance, Fish. In fact, I think they are rather on the side of the opposition. It remains an interesting idea, though.

The best!
Frank

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Just so Fisherman's position is not misunderstood, his rejection of the identification of GH as JF is based on his personal interpretation of Jack's psychology"

My rejection of GH as JF is to a significant extent based on this, yes. But it would be careless not to mention the fact that statistics are on my side big time too - the average serial killer will not go to the police and inject himself into an ongoing investigation.

Caz, you write:
"I agree with Ben that Jack was very likely to have attacked others like Ada, and in ways that were not all going to be carbon copies of a Polly/Annie/Kate attack."

I don´t start out with Polly, Caz - I start out with Tabram, and that was an attack that was NOT a carbon copy of the three you mention.
I have nothing much against a suggestion that there may have been other attacks before the Tabram slaying, but I don´t think we can point to a single attack, radically different from what was evinced later on, and say that - for example - the Wilson incident was exactly what we could expect from a fledgling Ripper. If we are to accept radical differences, then we had better be very openminded about it all, and admit that we are at a loss to describe just HOW such an attack would have differed to "fit in".

The fact that I don´t feel any need to have a predecessor to Tabram lies in the fact that I think that Jacks role in the Geaorge Yard deed may well have been that of a scavenger, and as such, there are implications that he did not strike until this opportunity offered itself. It pushed him over the edge, so to say. The chance is thus there, that he may have been reluctant to cross the border before, the way I see it.

The best, both of you!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Napper is indeed an interesting comparison study with Jack, and I've mentioned his case a few times on the board prior to his admission of guilt yesterday.

Just a quick point on the issue of Hutchinson/Fleming. Just so Fisherman's position is not misunderstood, his rejection of the identification of GH as JF is based on his personal interpretation of Jack's psychology, and as such I can't argue against it, except inasmuch as I interpret the psychology very differently and don't see how the identification can be seen as incompatible on those grounds. Since we're not on the appropriate thread, I won't repeat here the similarities between the two characters that don't relate to psychology, but suffice to say I find them quite compelling and I'm not alone in that belief.

One of the most interesting aspects to have emerged from the Napper investingation is the fact that he used to stalk his victims outside their homes for prolonged periods, conducting prior surveillance before seeking the opportune moment to strike. That piqued my curiosity, having formed the impression for some time that the killer gained access to Miller's Court this way. It perhaps obliges us to take Lewis' loiterer more seriously, and by extension, anyone who claimed to be that individual.

This suggests some cunning and opportunism on the part of Napper (who also meticulously marked his crimes on the A-Z) which clearly isn't at odds with the other details that we know to be true of him; that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia etc. There's no mutual exclusivity between a killer suffering from some form of psychosis and one who is capable of cunning and manipulation.

I disagree with the notion of a serial offender going to the considerable trouble of obtaining trophies if he knows he doesn't have anywhere more private to take them back to than the Victoria Home.

A location that enabled him to blend into the masses unnoticed didn't need to be "private" though. Privacy was a very scarce commodity in the East End; he may have desirded it, but it's unlikely that he could have obtained it, so he had to make do with cultivating the habit of passing unnoticed. In many respects, it was almost better than a private house or room; any evidence left in such a set-up would lead right back to the offender, but that wouldn't have been the case in a 400+ strong dodgy doss 'ouse where people came and went with no lasting record of their presence.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Fish & Ben,

After hearing a bit more about this Robert Napper character, I agree and disagree with you both.

I agree with Fish, in that I don't see how Hutch and Fleming can be spliced to become Jack.

I agree with Ben that Jack was very likely to have attacked others like Ada, and in ways that were not all going to be carbon copies of a Polly/Annie/Kate attack.

I also think his bodily trophies (among others eg Annie's rings) were not the primary goal, but almost certainly taken to remind him of something he considered akin to a sexual conquest.

I agree with both of you that Fleming sounds on the surface like a potential ripper, if Napper's case is anything to go by.

However, in this regard, maybe we need to look further at whether the ripper (Fleming, Hutch or Flem/Hutch) was a cunning psychopath, with little or no outward appearance of insanity, or had the kind of mental instability that Napper has, or the type of illness which put Fleming away. I imagine it would be rare to be a psychopath and have other more obvious mental problems, but is it totally unheard of? I really don't know.

I disagree with the notion of a serial offender going to the considerable trouble of obtaining trophies if he knows he doesn't have anywhere more private to take them back to than the Victoria Home.

I also disagree with the notion that the ripper is any more likely to have been one of Mary Kelly's associates than someone who encountered her pretty much as he encountered his other victims.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I am not saying that this sort of approach does not work. I am only saying that what it provides is an ice so thin that I won´t join you on it.

That isn't the case at all, though. Judging by the earlier attacks of other serial killers when their methods were in their infancy, I don't think there can be any valid reason for ruling out the Wilson attack, which is precisely the sort of faltering early attempt that we ought to expect from a knife-using serial killer's MO in its infancy. To rule out all early attacks on the grounds that they didn't involve abdominal wounds is the opposite of being "careful".

Of course it can be reasoned that it would be logical to leave nigh on half a year before striking again if you know you had been seen. But if he was seen at the canonical sites, that obviously did not apply later

The crucial difference here, Fish, is that the victim herself provided the description at extremely close range, rather than an independent witness who saw the victim in the company of a man who may or may not have been her killer. He would also have been less experienced by that stage, and so less confident.

And my logic tells me that Ada Wilson had nothing to do with the Ripper killings, just as it tells me that Tabram was the first victim and Kelly the last, since it effectively put an end to his previous urges. It also tells me that the conglomerate Hutch/Fleming is way off the mark, psychologically - the masquerading you suggest is something that is totally implausible to me.

And my logic tells me the precise opposite in both cases. I naturally accept your point that our differing mental images of that the ripper will result in differing opinions as to what "works" physchologically, although I like to think my impressions are bolstered by evidence from this and other serial cases.

Putting it differently: I won´t call you stupid for staying with your wiew if you will extend me the same courtesy. And as a bonus, in that manner we can both look foward to celebrating Christmas in a spirit of good will!

...And to you, Fish.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"We're not in the diluting business though, Fish.

We're in the "using our knowledge of other serial cases to pinpoint viable examples of early attacks on the part of the ripper" business, and it's a good business to be in because we've both historical precedent and a known event from history on our side. As I mentioned, five months isn't a very long time in which to contemplate his next move. Obviously, if he was seen and described by Wilson, it's only reasonable to surmise that he may have allowed a realsitic interval of time to elapse before striking again."

Yes, it would be nice, would it not, if we could actually pinpoint the Wilson attack as a viable Ripper deed, as you propose, Ben. And furthermore, if we could use "historical precedent and known events from history" to put us on firm ground.

I am not saying that this sort of approach does not work. I am only saying that what it provides is an ice so thin that I won´t join you on it. Being a fisherman I have experienced what an ice-cold soaking does to you, and so I remain a little more careful.

As for your repeated assertion that the time interval was a suitable one for him to contemplate his next move, I still say that the generally accepted opportunities when he struck speaks to me of something different. Of course it can be reasoned that it would be logical to leave nigh on half a year before striking again if you know you had been seen. But if he was seen at the canonical sites, that obviously did not apply later. Therefore I am much more inclined to deduct that the interval after Wilson was too long to suit my logic, though it´s fine by me if it satisfies yours.

We see the Ripper differently, you and I, and I of course go by my own convictions when I try to assess what is viable or not. Where you add to the measure of boldness, cheakyness, stealth, criminality and evil on Jack´s behalf, I tend to deduct. The simple reason for this is that it is the only way I can come up with a Ripper who responds to all the vital questions about his mentality, incentives and character traits that I ask. I have tried it your way too, Ben, hundreds of times and dozens of years, and it did not produce the goods for me. Vitally, I think that every Ripperologists own personal mindset will colour the picture of the Ripper he comes up with. We need our respective Rippers to respond to our own ways of thinking, our own logic.
And my logic tells me that Ada Wilson had nothing to do with the Ripper killings, just as it tells me that Tabram was the first victim and Kelly the last, since it effectively put an end to his previous urges. It also tells me that the conglomerate Hutch/Fleming is way off the mark, psychologically - the masquerading you suggest is something that is totally implausible to me. But it is quite simple to see that it fits in very well with your take on things - the Ripper you are putting together is a viable one, and one that tallies very well with the general public apprehension.

Putting it differently: I won´t call you stupid for staying with your wiew if you will extend me the same courtesy. And as a bonus, in that manner we can both look foward to celebrating Christmas in a spirit of good will!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

then we end up in the diluting business again!

We're not in the diluting business though, Fish.

We're in the "using our knowledge of other serial cases to pinpoint viable examples of early attacks on the part of the ripper" business, and it's a good business to be in because we've both historical precedent and a known event from history on our side. As I mentioned, five months isn't a very long time in which to contemplate his next move. Obviously, if he was seen and described by Wilson, it's only reasonable to surmise that he may have allowed a realsitic interval of time to elapse before striking again.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"we shouldn't ask ourselves that at all because we could end up prioritizing one "cut" over another for no good reason. Are we prioritizing them in terms of what his ultimate goal was, or his preferred order of cutting? Since we appear to be in agreement that the throat was his first port of call..."

Who´s looking for "no good reason", Ben! It´s good reasoning I propose, and arguably we can reach certainty only about one area of prioritized focus in the Ripper´s case - the abdomen.
And actually, I do not agree that the throat was his first port of call as he set out with Tabram - it was the outcome of that business that made him change his priorities, if my suggestion is correct.

"an attack of this nature is precisely what we ought to be looking for when contemplating earlier attacks by a serial killer"

Again, Ben, I will press the point that there is a very awkward "exactly" involved in this sentence of yours. It stands to reason that all attacks involving knife-accompanied violence are of interest, but then again if you back down to the summer 1887, one year before Jack, and if you regard all knife-accompanied violence directed towards women as "exactly" what we are looking for, then we end up in the diluting business again!

"Five months cannot possibly be construed as "too far back in time".

This time I will pick another wording, Ben: "cannot possibly". Of course it is possible that it was too long a time. It all depends on the development of the killers incentive and urges. Just as it may have been within reasonable time limits, it may have been well without them too. I think that the period should be seen in relation to the pace Jack used as he set out, leaving only a few days inbetween Nichols and Chapman. Seen in that perspective, the "cannot possible" may well absorb a trait of "possible", I´d say!

Off for now! All the best!
Fisherman