Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Just Throwing This Out There...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Errata View Post
    There have been sort of homages, serial killers who are big old fanboys of other serial killers. But I've never heard of a frame job, or a straight copy cat.
    Thanks Errata. Therefore, if Michael is correct, we're possibly dealing with something unique in recorded criminologigal history. On that basis, I'm afraid Michael's theory doesn't seem very compelling!

    Unfortunately, this is a problem for the different killers theory generally: as far as I can see none of the alternative scenarios that have been proposed, to the single killer hypothesis, appear remotely plausible.
    Last edited by John G; 04-16-2016, 10:21 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      The theory of a gang being involved would seem to be challenged by the fact that in the cases of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly they were all reported seen shortly before their deaths in the company of a single man.

      And copycat serial killers? The Zodiac had a couple of them who used his name, including one (if memory serves) in Japan.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by kensei View Post
        The theory of a gang being involved would seem to be challenged by the fact that in the cases of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly they were all reported seen shortly before their deaths in the company of a single man.

        And copycat serial killers? The Zodiac had a couple of them who used his name, including one (if memory serves) in Japan.
        But that's not a copycat in the sense of copying another killer's signature. In fact, the Japanese "Zodiac" was a child murderer who mutilated his victims, so both victimology and signature were very different, although he did send similar letters.
        Last edited by John G; 04-16-2016, 01:58 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by kensei View Post
          The theory of a gang being involved would seem to be challenged by the fact that in the cases of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly they were all reported seen shortly before their deaths in the company of a single man.

          And copycat serial killers? The Zodiac had a couple of them who used his name, including one (if memory serves) in Japan.
          From Martha to Catherine, the things that suggest the possibility of the involvement of more than one killer (regarding gangs) are the organ harvesting [ie. uterus, kidney] and how he subdued his many victims quickly and "quietly" in public environments without much display of a struggle.

          Removing those two aspects from all of the cases, I cannot see any reason why one man couldn't inflict those type of knife wounds, even to the extent of removing her intestines.
          there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by kensei View Post
            And copycat serial killers? The Zodiac had a couple of them who used his name, including one (if memory serves) in Japan.
            The Japanese killer was very different from Zodiac. The only thing that could be called a copy were a few taunting messages, one of the symbols he put before his self appointed nickname was Zodiac's. Besides the nod, they weren't similar at all.
            Actually I think Il Monstro's first attack in Italy preceded Zodiac's by a couple months. So it might have inspired Zodiac.
            Iím often irrelevant. It confuses people.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Shaggyrand View Post
              The Japanese killer was very different from Zodiac. The only thing that could be called a copy were a few taunting messages, one of the symbols he put before his self appointed nickname was Zodiac's. Besides the nod, they weren't similar at all.
              Actually I think Il Monstro's first attack in Italy preceded Zodiac's by a couple months. So it might have inspired Zodiac.
              Ah, but that depends who you regard as Zodiac victims: the murders of Cheri Jo Bates and Domingos and Edwards preceded the Monster of Florence murders. And, of course, the Zodiac and Monster of Florence murders took part in different continents, which is whereas with JtR there would be the incredible coincidence of a "copycat" emerging from the same tiny geographical district.
              Last edited by John G; 04-17-2016, 02:22 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
                I know I've heard a few people in the past suggest that Emma Smith was murdered by a gang trying to extort 'protection' money from local prostitutes...it's just popped into my head that the succession of murders which followed could also have been committed by a gang, in order to terrify the local unfortunates and make them more likely to sign up for their 'services'.

                I don't mean that each individual woman was murdered with the entire gang present...just that one, or maybe two, members of the gang were responsible for selecting and attacking women. Perhaps this was at random, or perhaps for refusing protection in the past.

                Anyway, just a thought.
                The gang would need to be sure that the unfortunates knew they were responsible for the killings (even if just one man was actually doing them) or else the idea of their being a warning would not work.

                If it was common knowledge that a gang was responsible then I think that somebody would have said something about it to the police, or would have told a friend or acquaintance, and they would have reported the information.
                Especially once large rewards were being offered for information.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by John G View Post
                  Ah, but that depends who you regard as Zodiac victims: the murders of Cheri Jo Bates and Domingos and Edwards preceded the Monster of Florence murders. And, of course, the Zodiac and Monster of Florence murders took part in different continents, which is whereas with JtR there would be the incredible coincidence of a "copycat" emerging from the same tiny geographical district.
                  I agree that a copycat on that small area is very unlikely. I think any copycat suggestion is pretty ridiculous. Sorry, it was late and I wasn't sarcastic enough about the Zodiac/Il Monstro connection.
                  Though Bates wasn't a Zodiac victim, Riverside police have long said she wasn't and that they were pretty sure they knew who did kill her but couldn't make an arrest. It is possible that a formative Zodiac wrote the letters received after her murder. The only actual connection was how happily Zodiac took credit after the papers linked them, by that point Zodiac was running up his killcount in letters but only fictitiously as far as anyone could tell.
                  Its the same with Domingos and Edwards and Garcia and Hood, unlikely they were killed by him but could very well have had an effect on a formative Zodiac.
                  Iím often irrelevant. It confuses people.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hi all, and thanks for the very interesting discussion.

                    'Copy cat' was perhaps the wrong choice of phrase. What I was really driving at was the possibility that a gang or individual caught onto the idea that the local population was outraged at the brutality of the attack on Emma. From there, they formulated the plan that causing further trauma would be a great way to drive up business. Given the appalling nature of the injuries that lead to Emma's death, I don't think the person/people responsible had any concern for a) human life or b) whether their methods were excessively brutal.

                    Again, I have to admit that I'm not really committed to this as a theory, it was really just something that crossed my mind and I thought might lead to some interesting discussion.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
                      From there, they formulated the plan that causing further trauma would be a great way to drive up business. Given the appalling nature of the injuries that lead to Emma's death, I don't think the person/people responsible had any concern for a) human life or b) whether their methods were excessively brutal.
                      The JtR killings would have been very bad for a protection racket. No one is going to pay if there is someone running around doing that to the locals. It shows the gang doesn't have control of the area and that they can't help you. It would open the gang territory for more aggressive takeover attempts from others. It would greatly weaken their position while the murders were going on. After the murders stop without an arrest protection gangs could spin that to great financial gain.
                      It makes less sense for an extortion racket. They commit murders so vicious that it brings every cop, reporter, social crusader and bored curious onlooker for miles around down on their heads? It doesn't matter if they had no concern over the brutality of their day to day operations. I could even, for the sake of argument, accept such a gang might try that once but repeatedly with ever increasing sustained outside interest... it just doesn't stand up for me.
                      Smith could have been an extortion racket going to far. The others? Not a chance.
                      Iím often irrelevant. It confuses people.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Agree.

                        I don't completely discount that 'Jack' could have been an (ex) gang member who developed a taste for brutality, or who had an existing mental illness that got worse due to lifestyle or progression.

                        I'm definitely one of those who think that his name has never been recorded in connection with the murders...possibly through other crimes or in the patient records of an asylum, but certainly not as a suspect in the Whitechapel killings.

                        I think it's far more likely that like the majority of serial killers, he was a 'nobody', apart from the enduring mystery of the crimes that he committed.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Shaggyrand View Post
                          The JtR killings would have been very bad for a protection racket. No one is going to pay if there is someone running around doing that to the locals. It shows the gang doesn't have control of the area and that they can't help you. It would open the gang territory for more aggressive takeover attempts from others. It would greatly weaken their position while the murders were going on. After the murders stop without an arrest protection gangs could spin that to great financial gain.
                          It makes less sense for an extortion racket. They commit murders so vicious that it brings every cop, reporter, social crusader and bored curious onlooker for miles around down on their heads? It doesn't matter if they had no concern over the brutality of their day to day operations. I could even, for the sake of argument, accept such a gang might try that once but repeatedly with ever increasing sustained outside interest... it just doesn't stand up for me.
                          Smith could have been an extortion racket going to far. The others? Not a chance.
                          What about the aspect of "casual prostitution"? It was the "casual prostitute" on the street who really had to worry about the safety of her life. Entertaining fantasy, it could have been a message for them, possibly by a criminal element who wanted their "casual" business off the streets.
                          there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                            What about the aspect of "casual prostitution"? It was the "casual prostitute" on the street who really had to worry about the safety of her life. Entertaining fantasy, it could have been a message for them, possibly by a criminal element who wanted their "casual" business off the streets.
                            As scared as the casual prostitute likely was, I imagine it was 10 times worse for those in the rough trade.
                            The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                              What about the aspect of "casual prostitution"? It was the "casual prostitute" on the street who really had to worry about the safety of her life. Entertaining fantasy, it could have been a message for them, possibly by a criminal element who wanted their "casual" business off the streets.
                              Doesn't change my line of thought at all. Makes even less sense in that case. It brings a world of problems to them for little payoff. Who they are targeting doesn't matter. Why do that to send a message? Casuals would be just as likely to pay when they are working the street if approached properly. The threat of hurting their ability, or actually making it difficult for them, is far more effective. Maybe stabbing one a bit, not whole sake butchery. They could still get their cut and don't have an uncontrollable mess of unwanted attention nosing around.
                              Last edited by Shaggyrand; 04-18-2016, 10:44 AM.
                              Iím often irrelevant. It confuses people.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Shaggyrand View Post
                                Doesn't change my line of thought at all. Makes even less sense in that case. It brings a world of problems to them for little payoff. Who they are targeting doesn't matter. Why do that to send a message?
                                Your post DOES point out a gaping whole in my logic with the primsry question being, WHY CREATE A BOGEYMAN? That solution seems beyond the thinking that you ascribed to the street layman, and more reserved for the upper management criminal mastermind type who wanted to employ a ,,media, solution to an ,,economic,, problem. IOW a sensible answer would be required to explain the purpose of organ harvesting when quick murders, such as Martha or Polly, would be just as scandalous.

                                I can,t think of any historical basis. The closest event might be the maquila murders of Juarez Mexico which employed elaborate kidnapping schemes. In that case, however, it appears as though it came as a result of gang violence [ie. narco traffickers] and cult mania [ie. satanism].

                                At the same time, these casusl prostitutes seem to exist with less accountability. They were either between boyfriends or jobs or hooking for the purpose of filling in monetary gaps. They didn,t seem like they were bound to a street corner or pub where protection payment could be enforced with the exception of Mary Jane.
                                there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X