Open Mind

[Wickerman]

Other nearby lampposts are in the same position of other marked hydrant's on the maps in old photos.

The hydrant cover by The Queen's Head is actually further north than indicated on the maps.

The hydrant cover is still away from the edge of the kerb both on the maps and in reality.

The conclusion therefore is that the marked hydrants on the maps were the lampposts they were near by.


The old lamppost currently to be found in Fashion Street is a reproduction and is a 21st century addition.

I wondered if you had possibly not seen any Keys to these survey drawings.
Here is an enlargement of the one standard for most maps.

You can see in the bottom right the Blue circle - Hydrant.
There are no symbols for Street Lighting.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Tabram, Stride, Kelly, McKenzie...all.different and yet most likely the same killer.

When you say different, I reckon the idea that these murders would display more or less the same pattern, has been overestimated.

Murdering women in the streets, is extremely rare. It would be interesting to hear of an instance of two men running around murdering women, in the same location at broadly the same time; in pretty much the same manner of attacking women, in the streets, in England. I reckon you'd have a job on your hands to find such an instance, such is the rarity of it.

In the event you can't find an instance, it would tell a story.

Recently, say the last 20 years, there has been much more focus on analysing the behaviour of known serial killers, this type of murder that is.

What those studies have found, by looking at the nature of their crimes, is that during the crime series these people do not exhibit such rigid, inflexible behaviour; and their crimes involve experimenting and so you're not going to see the same wounds or whatever across a crime series. Empirical studies tell us that, and as always: experience outweighs theory.

[Wickerman]

To get back to Alice.

Similar type of woman, similar location, post mortem mutilation, skirts lifted, whatever fight Alice put up it wasn't sufficient for anyone in the vicinity to know about it.

The murder of strangers in the street is extremely rare.

Whatever else was different about this murder, there is enough there to say probably the same man.

A cut throat is hardly a Ripper trade mark, murderers have been cutting throat for centuries, and the five scratches (typical of fingers?) across the abdomen, suggests what?

[Wickerman]

.... the murder of Alice McKenzie is indeed more like Nichols than Kelly.
If we look at the murders of McKenzie and Nichols in unison, it's almost certain they were committed by the same hand.

I can't imagine many who would agree with that.
Though I could see a parallel between the Stride & Coles murders, but Nichols is more equated with Chapman & Eddowes.

The reason why McKenzie has not been officially included as a canonical victim of the Ripper comes purely down to the timing.

Is this the Open Mind thread?
It looks more like you're taking an assumption to be fact.
If there were any copy-cat murders in this series, one had to be this McKenzie murder.

Some are of the illusion that Kelly must have been his final victim because she was obliterated beyond recognition and the victims that preceded her didn't receive the level of wounds as she did.
On that basis it has been assumed that because of the severity of wound inflicted on Kelly, that she must have been the pinnacle of his murder spree.
But this has been one of the most misleading viewpoints to have impacted on the case as a whole.

I wouldn't say that is a common view, more likely the fact he had an opportunity to go to town in seclusion for as much time as he wanted, as opposed to minutes at best. This is more likely in my view to explain the extent of the mutilations. Was it Macnaghten who suggested the killer's mind must have exploded after that session, or something to that effect?
I take most analysts view that as nonsense.

Another reason why McKenzie is not a popular choice is because it eradicates many key suspects in one go.

It can't be denied it is a factor, but some would see that as a positive not a negative. At some point we have to draw the line between a regular or copy-cat murder, and the real thing.

The obvious question then is..."why did the killer stop?"
Now its true that killers don't just stop for no reason, but if we choose to believe that Kelly was his last victim, then it goes against the idea that killers don't stop.
In other words, by including McKenzie and Coles, then the killer didn't just stop, because then he has murdered women over several years and not just in the "autumn of terror."
It's difficult to look at the case objectively and that's just human nature, but if we look at the McKenzie case with an "OPEN MIND," then the evidence strongly suggests that Alice was a Ripper victim.

Doesn't Open Mind, more likely suggest we must make allowances for other possibilities?

[Wickerman]

When you say different, I reckon the idea that these murders would display more or less the same pattern, has been overestimated.

Murdering women in the streets, is extremely rare. It would be interesting to hear of an instance of two men running around murdering women, in the same location at broadly the same time; in pretty much the same manner of attacking women, in the streets, in England. I reckon you'd have a job on your hands to find such an instance, such is the rarity of it.

In the event you can't find an instance, it would tell a story.

Recently, say the last 20 years, there has been much more focus on analysing the behaviour of known serial killers, this type of murder that is.

What those studies have found, by looking at the nature of their crimes, is that during the crime series these people do not exhibit such rigid, inflexible behaviour; and their crimes involve experimenting and so you're not going to see the same wounds or whatever across a crime series. Empirical studies tell us that, and as always: experience outweighs theory.

If we decide to blend any differences between murders, how do we decide where to draw the line, or do we assign every murder to the same killer?
I would hope clearly not, then surely this type of nouveau analysis must now offer a substitute means of differentiation between the work of two different killers?
In other words, if we can't use 'what they do' as a means, then what can we use?

[Fleetwood Mac]

If we decide to blend any differences between murders, how do we decide where to draw the line, or do we assign every murder to the same killer?
I would hope clearly not, then surely this type of nouveau analysis must now offer a substitute means of differentiation between the work of two different killers?
In other words, if we can't use 'what they do' as a means, then what can we use?

'Nouveau analysis' suggests an attempt to dismiss and deride empirical studies as some sort of fashion not built upon much.

The empirical studies do 'use what they do', Jon. The point I'm making is 'what they do' does not conform to your theoretical, outdated view of 'what they do'.

The practical aspect is that in the event you have a series of crimes which involve similar traits such as: the same type of location, the same type of victim, in the same area, swift kills for the purpose of mutilation, skirts raised, around the same time; then you're very probably looking at the same man. These types of crimes are extremely rare and there are important similarities.

What you're suggesting is the very reason why some families of Peter Sutcliffe's victims have never had justice. The police believed that some women murdered in Yorkshire were not at his hand, because of perceived significant differences built upon outdated notions. When it was all put together however, it became clear that Sutcliffe alternated between strangulation, using ligatures, the type of hammer he used, the type of knife or screwdriver he used and so on.

There were women murdered in Yorkshire whose families have never had justice, because the police believed everything had to match exactly but those women were either hit over the head or strangled and the bodies were posed, after the same type of attack. By the time people looked at it and said: "look, this murder bears striking similarities to this other known Sutcliffe murder", the police didn't want to know; they were already embarrassed by their police investigation and they wanted it swept under the carpet. The police declared that it wouldn't be in the "public interest" to reopen these cases.

Never mind that three men spent somewhere in the range of 23 to 27 years each locked up, before the conviction was overturned and they were released; and the families of the murdered women did not get justice for their daughter or mother. If that's not in the public interest then I have no idea what is.

I suppose 1970s West Yorkshire coppers would have also said that advances in empirical studies and knowledge is 'nouveau analysis'. There was a reason why there was an inquiry into their policing methods and a subsequent overhaul.

[Wickerman]

Fair enough, and your reply concentrated on why we should not differentiate between two murders, but my question was - bearing in mind this contrary approach, how do we now differentiate between two (or more) murders done by different individuals?
The police view at the time (1888), was to investigate each case as an individual, as far as I recall, this is the same approach today.

[The Rookie Detective]

'Nouveau analysis' suggests an attempt to dismiss and deride empirical studies as some sort of fashion not built upon much.

The empirical studies do 'use what they do', Jon. The point I'm making is 'what they do' does not conform to your theoretical, outdated view of 'what they do'.

The practical aspect is that in the event you have a series of crimes which involve similar traits such as: the same type of location, the same type of victim, in the same area, swift kills for the purpose of mutilation, skirts raised, around the same time; then you're very probably looking at the same man. These types of crimes are extremely rare and there are important similarities.

What you're suggesting is the very reason why some families of Peter Sutcliffe's victims have never had justice. The police believed that some women murdered in Yorkshire were not at his hand, because of perceived significant differences built upon outdated notions. When it was all put together however, it became clear that Sutcliffe alternated between strangulation, using ligatures, the type of hammer he used, the type of knife or screwdriver he used and so on.

There were women murdered in Yorkshire whose families have never had justice, because the police believed everything had to match exactly but those women were either hit over the head or strangled and the bodies were posed, after the same type of attack. By the time people looked at it and said: "look, this murder bears striking similarities to this other known Sutcliffe murder", the police didn't want to know; they were already embarrassed by their police investigation and they wanted it swept under the carpet. The police declared that it wouldn't be in the "public interest" to reopen these cases.

Never mind that three men spent somewhere in the range of 23 to 27 years each locked up, before the conviction was overturned and they were released; and the families of the murdered women did not get justice for their daughter or mother. If that's not in the public interest then I have no idea what is.

I suppose 1970s West Yorkshire coppers would have also said that advances in empirical studies and knowledge is 'nouveau analysis'. There was a reason why there was an inquiry into their policing methods and a subsequent overhaul.

One of the best posts I have read in a long time, 100% agree with you on this.

That's the fundamental point of this "OPEN MIND" thread right there.

In other words; we need to broaden our horizons.

I imagine there are still some police services across the UK that still hold archaic views.
The amount of unsolved cold cases that could potentially be solved; if communication and a more adaptive and open mindset were more commonplace.

Some things change, while some things stay the same.


RD

[Wickerman]

Which means what?
Every streetwalker (Tabram to Coles?), murdered by knife, overnight, was the result of the same killer?

[The Rookie Detective]

Fair enough, and your reply concentrated on why we should not differentiate between two murders, but my question was - bearing in mind this contrary approach, how do we now differentiate between two (or more) murders done by different individuals?
The police view at the time (1888), was to investigate each case as an individual, as far as I recall, this is the same approach today.

Treating each murder on an individual basis; while theoretically correct, can sometimes hinder murder investigations.


The idea that a killer has to remain within a certain comfort zone radius, and can't get in a car and drive 200 miles to commit another murder elsewhere, is part of the reason why so many crimes go unsolved.

It is a fact that different police services fall short in terms of their relative communication with each other, and nobody would link a murder victim in London to another killing in Leeds.

While statistically, it's less likely, it is still possible for a killer to slay victims over a wider geographical field.

The Yorkshire Ripper case is just one example of an incompetent police practice. The trouble is that when you get senior officers who lead a case, and who fail to look outside the box and consider other options, then the case becomes bogged down by bureaucracy; because at the end of the day nobody wants to put their neck on the line.

I would suggest that there were officers of similar ilk in the Ripper case; overconfident men whose arrogance shielded them from having an open mind.

It's best practice to treat every murder as an individual case, but the fact remains that countless numbers of killers have eluded justice; because someone didn't see a pattern. or failed to contact another police service to cross-reference and compare data.

Thank goodness we at least have the criminal DNA database nowadays.

Even then, I bet there's still obvious connections that aren't picked up. Any process that involves manual human input is open to mistakes.

There are likely many serial killers out there who have never been linked to multiple murders, and thus the number of active or ex-serial killers is grossly underestimated.


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

That's the fundamental point of this "OPEN MIND" thread right there.

I don't think it's an 'open mind', RD, but rather acknowledging the empirical studies.

The age we live in is one of the Age of Science or the Age of Reason, whatever you want to call it, which demands that theory is tested in order to arrive at a verifiable proposition.

Jon's theory is outdated given that the empirical studies, most of them quite recent, undertaken by people who analysed their crimes and their behaviour at crime sites across a series; are telling us that the evidence/information is not in keeping with what Jon is suggesting.

In the event Jon is going to ignore the empirical studies, in an age that demands the theory is tested, then Jon is taking us back to an age when people got down on their hands and knees, howled at the moon and begged for a better harvest.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Which means what?

Every streetwalker (Tabram to Coles?), murdered by knife, overnight, was the result of the same killer?

They were women whose profession (necessity) was sex. That profession was merely one minor part of their identity. I reckon the nature of these crimes sometimes gets lost while we're coming up with theories. They were brutal, evil crimes upon women in a vulnerable position.

You're missing some important information, Jon.

Those women weren't merely 'murdered by knife'.

They were murdered, post mortem mutilation was attempted or they were stabbed in sexual regions of the anatomy and the abdomen; and their skirts were lifted up. Those are rare crimes and the lifting of the skirts is important. When you add in that the location of these crimes was in such a confined area, then it would be unheard of for two killers displaying those same traits in the same small geographical location; certainly in England anyway.

As for Frances, who didn't have her skirt lifted up, that's more debatable.

But, we know PC Thompson's statement that the murderer was disturbed and either Frances was still alive when PC Thompson came upon her, or she was only very recently dead. That would be good reason to suggest that the murderer only moved on when he was disturbed and he had more in mind than what happened. In addition, that murder happened in a dark alley. That murderer was not in that location by accident. It wasn't a drunken Thomas Sadler seeking revenge or whatever. It was someone who approached Frances for the purpose of getting her into a dark, private spot to kill her and that wouldn't be in line with an opportunistic robbery or an act of drunken revenge. PC Elliot was nearby and didn't hear anything, and so you have a very similar situation to Liz Stride except Frances' skirt wasn't lifted, but then we know that Frances had only just been attacked when PC Thompson disturbed the murderer and so the murderer didn't have the time to do anything else.

[rjpalmer]

In the event Jon is going to ignore the empirical studies, in an age that demands the theory is tested, then Jon is taking us back to an age when people got down on their hands and knees, howled at the moon and begged for a better harvest.

What "empirical studies" is Jon ignoring? You haven't cited any.

Put your cards on the table. Cite the empirical studies that demonstrate the ability of the police and/or profilers to conclusively prove that two or more crimes are related without any forensic evidence available to prove it.

[The Rookie Detective]

They were women whose profession (necessity) was sex. That profession was merely one minor part of their identity. I reckon the nature of these crimes sometimes gets lost while we're coming up with theories. They were brutal, evil crimes upon women in a vulnerable position.

You're missing some important information, Jon.

Those women weren't merely 'murdered by knife'.

They were murdered, post mortem mutilation was attempted or they were stabbed in sexual regions of the anatomy and the abdomen; and their skirts were lifted up. Those are rare crimes and the lifting of the skirts is important. When you add in that the location of these crimes was in such a confined area, then it would be unheard of for two killers displaying those same traits in the same small geographical location; certainly in England anyway.

As for Frances, who didn't have her skirt lifted up, that's more debatable.

But, we know PC Thompson's statement that the murderer was disturbed and either Frances was still alive when PC Thompson came upon her, or she was only very recently dead. That would be good reason to suggest that the murderer only moved on when he was disturbed and he had more in mind than what happened. In addition, that murder happened in a dark alley. That murderer was not in that location by accident. It wasn't a drunken Thomas Sadler seeking revenge or whatever. It was someone who approached Frances for the purpose of getting her into a dark, private spot to kill her and that wouldn't be in line with an opportunistic robbery or an act of drunken revenge. PC Elliot was nearby and didn't hear anything, and so you have a very similar situation to Liz Stride except Frances' skirt wasn't lifted, but then we know that Frances had only just been attacked when PC Thompson disturbed the murderer and so the murderer didn't have the time to do anything else.

Precisely.

Coles was alive when Thompson interrupted the killer. She looked directly at Thompson with her eyes open as she lay there

The killer didn't have time to lift her skirt

It was the very first time that Thompson had walked that particular beat.

Imagine that, the very first time, and he misses seeing the killer by a matter of seconds.

The killer perhaps didn't anticipate that Thomson would be there at that time and expected more time with Coles.

The Ripper had always been seemingly aware of the timing of the police beats; hence why he could slay Eddowes, McKenzie, and Nichols between police patrols. Perhaps the killer got an extra rush of adrenaline knowing the police were always close by never close enough.

The fact that Thompson heard footsteps walking away from the location of Coles does imply the killer walked off and didn't run, which perhaps suggests that the killer was aware that Thompson wouldn't follow him due to the rule that an officer had to stay with the victim ahead of chasing a perpetrator.

If we consider Coles as a potential final victim, then it would appear his last kill was a botched effort. He still killed her, but he wasn't able to carry out his mutilations. IF he was the Ripper, then that must have angered him greatly.

It's also tragic that Thompson was later stabbed to death outside the coffee house.

I also find it fascinating that the Ripper never chose to engage with or attack anyone other than the victims themselves.
That might sound odd, but it says a lot about the nature and mindset of the killer at the time.
For example, if the Ripper was some deranged lunatic, or a street thug/gang member, then you would expect the killer to have attacked Thompson rather than evade confrontation.
Likewise, the Ripper could have killed Lechmere when he interrupted the scene, but he chose to evade capture.
Diemschultz also escaped being murdered because the killer evaded confrontation.

In every instance, the killer chooses to evade confrontation. That demands focus, clarity and an understanding of the consequences of being caught.

This non-confrontational character type strengthens the idea that the Ripper was calculated, controlled and had a level of psychopathy that meant he could change his persona at the drop of a hat. A passive aggressive who took out his anger and rage through his cutting and mutilations. Perhaps a dominant mother in his childhood.

Lots to ponder


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

Lots to ponder

You may find this interesting RD (with Alice in mind):

Ritual and Signature in Serial Sexual Homicide | Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (jaapl.org)

Notwithstanding numerous anecdotal case reports, ritual and signature have rarely been studied empirically.

Twenty-six (70.3%) of 37 offenders displayed behavior during one homicide that met our criteria for uniqueness. In other words, these offenders experimented at a crime scene: they behaved with only one victim in a way that they had not behaved with any of their other victims. In two cases the offender experimented in very different ways with two victims in the series, and in one case the offender experimented in different ways with three of his victims. The location of the incident of offender experimentation in a series varied: 3 offenders experimented with the first victim, 11 offenders experimented with the last victim, and the remainder experimented with a victim in the middle of the series. The three offenders who experimented with the first victim in their series may have had prior victims who were not attributed to them. The types of experimentation typically involved some form of postmortem genital mutilation, dismemberment, or both that were not done for body-disposal purposes.

Our research suggests that the crime scene actions of serial sexual murderers are fairly complex and varied. Specifically, the notion that offenders leave unique signatures at every scene is not supported by the data. Although almost all the offenders in our sample engaged in some form of ritualistic behavior, they rarely engaged in exactly the same behavior at every murder.

I'd say this has important implications for Mary also. It is postulated that Mary was the culmination of an evolutionary cycle. Perhaps Mary was the WM's 'experimentation in the middle of the series', while the core of the pattern was swift kill for no pleasure, same type of location, same type of woman, mutilation/attack on sexual regions of the anatomy for pleasure and skirt lifting/body posing.

I also find it fascinating that the Ripper never chose to engage with or attack anyone other than the victims themselves.

I reckon it's motive, RD.

The pleasure for these types of murderers is not in the kill per se, but rather in the mutilation. And, they tend to engage, ambush and kill swiftly (a vulnerable/weaker target). It's one of the reasons these people are generally non violent in prison: it doesn't lend towards ambush and their weaker/vulnerable target isn't there for them.