Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Ive never claimed belief that there were 4 different murderers in the C5 Harry, you must have me confused with someone else. Ive claimed that I believe that there was more than one single mad killer, and that unknown motives do not equate to absent motives. Also that a single cut doesn't belong with the list of mutilated women.
    Oh, no? Don't you propose that one man killed Nichols & Chapman (Isenschmid?), Stride was a spy killed by the socialist club, Eddowes was silenced for being a police informer, and Mary Kelly was the victim of a bloody love triangle? Five victims, four different killers no?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
      Oh, no? Don't you propose that one man killed Nichols & Chapman (Isenschmid?), Stride was a spy killed by the socialist club, Eddowes was silenced for being a police informer, and Mary Kelly was the victim of a bloody love triangle? Five victims, four different killers no?
      I'm of the opinion that C4 and C5 may be connected by killers, that C3 doesn't belong at all, and C1 and C2 are the ones that constitute double murder by one man. I admit I like Isenchmidt for the first 2.

      I suppose though that its fair to say possibly 4 killers, so I recall my response to your post. Yes, I believe 4 are possible.

      I do know this....when motives are absent, one must strongly consider some mental aberration as the actual motive, but when relationships are severed just before the crime(s), infidelity is possibly discovered, spying is suspected, or dangerous threats of accusing a killer.. then absent motives may well just be undiscovered motives.

      Why the murders happened, in terms of investigation, is far more important that what specifically happened in each individual case.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        I'm of the opinion that C4 and C5 may be connected by killers, that C3 doesn't belong at all, and C1 and C2 are the ones that constitute double murder by one man. I admit I like Isenchmidt for the first 2.

        I suppose though that its fair to say possibly 4 killers, so I recall my response to your post. Yes, I believe 4 are possible.

        I do know this....when motives are absent, one must strongly consider some mental aberration as the actual motive, but when relationships are severed just before the crime(s), infidelity is possibly discovered, spying is suspected, or dangerous threats of accusing a killer.. then absent motives may well just be undiscovered motives.

        Why the murders happened, in terms of investigation, is far more important that what specifically happened in each individual case.
        Ill just add this, a murder was committed a few years back within a few miles from my home, and the cause of the murder, according to him, was that the killer was made to feel inferior by the victim, and in a quick violent moment, a male teenager strangled the female teenager victim. He then cut the victim into pieces which he took away in 4 different directions to bury.

        Was the killer a dismemberer? Yes. Did dismemberment have anything to do with the ultimate motive for the crime, no. The motive is why people kill.
        What is done after that murder can be explained in many ways without assuming some deviant compulsion.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Four post-mortem mutilation murders, with the same MO, over the course of twelve weeks, within the same square mile. At the time, the whole concept of a serial killer was unprecedented but the police and medicos still recognised a blindingly obvious pattern when they saw one.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
            Four post-mortem mutilation murders, with the same MO, over the course of twelve weeks, within the same square mile. At the time, the whole concept of a serial killer was unprecedented but the police and medicos still recognised a blindingly obvious pattern when they saw one.
            And a womans torso. And a woman stabbed 37 times just prior to the alleged Canonical streak. And a woman with a slit throat and open abdomen in 1889.

            The mere fact that the Canonical List includes a woman who isnt mutilated post mortem, who isn't cut in any way but to kill, should be enough to give you pause as to what you've been told by the contemporary police.

            There is no evidence to even connect 1 Canonical to another, yet you folks seem to believe its acceptable to group a bunch of them by 1 unknown killer despite the glaringly obvious missing links or absence of any evidence.

            Hard to understand, still, after 25 years of this study.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              The mere fact that the Canonical List includes a woman who isnt mutilated post mortem, who isn't cut in any way but to kill, should be enough to give you pause as to what you've been told by the contemporary police.
              A woman murdered in close proximity to the other victims, within walking distance of another victim on the same night who had her throat slashed. Both murders were seemingly motiveless and there was no clear suspect in either one.

              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              There is no evidence to even connect 1 Canonical to another, yet you folks seem to believe its acceptable to group a bunch of them by 1 unknown killer despite the glaringly obvious missing links or absence of any evidence.
              What evidence would connect the canonicals, in your estimation? I'm dying to know.

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Michael W Richards;428274]

                The mere fact that the Canonical List includes a woman who isnt mutilated post mortem, who isn't cut in any way but to kill, should be enough to give you pause as to what you've been told by the contemporary police.
                Stride was one of the very important connections in the case in 1888. The murder of Stride caused the cutting off of the apron and the writing on the wall.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                  What evidence would connect the canonicals, in your estimation? I'm dying to know.
                  I believe that there exists a very real possibility that the motives for one or more of the murders could be found,... a letter, missing police report, personal memorandum, which would allow us to focus on the more likely grouping of murders. Maybe narrowing the search from everyone who had a pulse in East End London in the Fall of 1888 to something more manageable. Might lead to new research involving as yet unknown, or overlooked, players. There are far more murders committed for emotional or financial reasons than there are ones that involve the killers madness. Why eliminate the majority when looking for probabilities?

                  We know a few Canonicals can be seen travelling the same haunts as others, maybe there is something to be found there.

                  I don't think I would bother with this if I believed that nothing can be solved or illuminated, and I don't believe the current configuration and count for a single killer is accurate. There is always hope.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                    I believe that there exists a very real possibility that the motives for one or more of the murders could be found,... a letter, missing police report, personal memorandum, which would allow us to focus on the more likely grouping of murders. Maybe narrowing the search from everyone who had a pulse in East End London in the Fall of 1888 to something more manageable. Might lead to new research involving as yet unknown, or overlooked, players. There are far more murders committed for emotional or financial reasons than there are ones that involve the killers madness. Why eliminate the majority when looking for probabilities?

                    We know a few Canonicals can be seen travelling the same haunts as others, maybe there is something to be found there.

                    I don't think I would bother with this if I believed that nothing can be solved or illuminated, and I don't believe the current configuration and count for a single killer is accurate. There is always hope.
                    Thanks.

                    Each murder should be examined individually, that's standard protocol, and one that was taken at the time. However, in lieu of any identifiable suspect or motive, it soon became apparent to the police that they were dealing with a new breed of criminal, one that would later be dubbed a 'serial killer'. I know that you don't subscribe to that belief, you think serial killing was an anachronistic concept back then, even though the signature elements of the crimes correspond with other well-known serial killer behaviour. The human condition hasn't changed that much in 100 years.

                    If Eddowes, for example, was not murdered by the same man who killed Nichols & Chapman, why the overkill? If she was silenced for whatever reason, why didn't the killer stop at slitting her throat? Why did he needlessly increase the risk involved by mutilating her remains and stealing organs? Do you really think someone will resort to such extreme lengths just to cover their tracks? And you're presuming the killer needed to cover their tracks in the first place. He didn't.

                    Admittedly there is some room for doubt with someone like Stride. Although the odds of two cutthroat murders occurring independently of one other in such close proximity are staggering, particularly when murders such as these were a rare occurrence prior to 1888.

                    I don't know what else to tell you, Mike. I believe we've reached an impasse. You want to reinvent the wheel when the facts speak for themselves.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                      Each murder should be examined individually, that's standard protocol, and one that was taken at the time. However, in lieu of any identifiable suspect or motive, it soon became apparent to the police that they were dealing with a new breed of criminal, one that would later be dubbed a 'serial killer'. I know that you don't subscribe to that belief, you think serial killing was an anachronistic concept back then, even though the signature elements of the crimes correspond with other well-known serial killer behaviour. The human condition hasn't changed that much in 100 years.

                      I believe that the environment in which the killings take place eliminate the need for historical killers, (when compared with modern serial killers), to change their MO around a bit to confuse the investigation. In 1888 there were severe limitations on available sciences that could be used to test evidence,...they couldn't match blood by gender, they were not using fingerprints, there were no cameras in shops or at intersections, there was no Serial crimes division at all. Killers who had a predilection for certain activities could engage in them at will unless they were caught red-handed or turned in by someone. In Kates case, she allegedly stated that she was going to names someone she thought was a murderer to the police. Kates injuries therefore shouldn't be surprising in context...people who were know as rats or squealers within the Fenian organizations were killed and had their faces marked to warn others of the possible results if they should entertain that. That might address this next bit.....

                      If Eddowes, for example, was not murdered by the same man who killed Nichols & Chapman, why the overkill? If she was silenced for whatever reason, why didn't the killer stop at slitting her throat?

                      Admittedly there is some room for doubt with someone like Stride. Although the odds of two cutthroat murders occurring independently of one other in such close proximity are staggering, particularly when murders such as these were a rare occurrence prior to 1888.

                      I prefer facts to statistical presumptions Harry.

                      I don't know what else to tell you, Mike. I believe we've reached an impasse. You want to reinvent the wheel when the facts speak for themselves.

                      Nope. I just want the wheel to be round to even be classified as a wheel.....Liz Stride, for one, is a square wheel on the vehicle called Canonicals...and as such, it throws everything off balance.
                      I understand that many want to utilize serial killer statistics because they feel the killer can be categorized in this manner..my feeling is that the killer of Polly and Annie had severe mental issues and very little regard for, or distinction between, man and animal. I think Liz Stride pissed off her killer, I think that Kate may have been killed because she threatened to squeal on a killer, and Mary...well all Ive decided about her murderers motivation is that it was personal, and includes anger directed at Mary.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                        I think that Kate may have been killed because she threatened to squeal on a killer
                        Who but the killer of Polly and Annie would be threatened by this offhand (and uncorroborated) remark?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                          Who but the killer of Polly and Annie would be threatened by this offhand (and uncorroborated) remark?
                          And who but the killer of Polly & Annie would be in the mood for evisceration and organ removal? Lest we forget that Eddowes' killer also took a kidney. If he was trying to ape the Ripper, why not settle on the uterus? Instead, he plumped for one of the more difficult internal organs to excise, thus increasing the risk of capture and execution?

                          If you want to argue that Eddowes was the unfortunate victim of a Ripper wannabe, that's one thing, but to say that the mutilations and organ removal were a deliberate red herring is absolutely barmy.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                            Who but the killer of Polly and Annie would be threatened by this offhand (and uncorroborated) remark?
                            Well, we are talking about someone who kills people in this scenario, so he needn't be the one responsible for the previous 2 Canonicals, he might be someone she believed was responsible because of his reputation on the streets. I wonder if its possible she knew of him through her Irish socializing back with Conway. I can envision a situation where the man Kate believes is killing street whores is actually planning some other illegal activity, or robbing the Post Office, or involved with the Balfour plot. I agree that's looking at the darker edges of a possible answer here, but I don't believe its out of the question. It may well be that the Irish factor also applies to Mary Kelly, and that Kates incredibly coincidental use of almost Marys entire name and address, in mixed format, in the last 2 aliases she uses is evidence she actually knew Mary and she had been on her mind of late.

                            This is part of what leads me to believe the actual motives for some of the victims were related to political and revolutionary concerns, since the Fall of 88 was only a year out from the riot at Trafalgar, and since there was a foiled bomber plot that same year, and since there was an ongoing plan to assassinate Balfour, and since the Parnell Commission was looking into possible parliamentary links with terrorists, much of these activities concerning residents in and around the East end.....I'm sorry to phrase it this way, but the murder, however cruel, of some street unfortunates was hardly the most explosive thing going on in and around Whitechapel at the time. It was news worthy though....and that may help explain some letters which created this mythological character in the first place.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              This is part of what leads me to believe the actual motives for some of the victims were related to political and revolutionary concerns
                              So, an unprecedented string of similar murders of similar victims within weeks of each other doesn't convince you there's a link, but you're quite happy to speculate on the flimsiest hint of evidence about links to political assassinations and turmoil that may have been happening within a year or so....?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                                So, an unprecedented string of similar murders of similar victims within weeks of each other doesn't convince you there's a link, but you're quite happy to speculate on the flimsiest hint of evidence about links to political assassinations and turmoil that may have been happening within a year or so....?
                                Surely no more speculative than associating Liz Strides murder with a so called serial pm mutilator? Based on an unsubstantiated interruption theory?

                                Similar murders means murders that have many similarities...like Pollys, Annies and perhaps Kate. Dissimilar murders, like a single throat cut or a dissection class with a 26 year old woman performed indoors, shouldn't be lumped with murders of middle aged street women without means for a bed on the particular evening they meet their killers, while soliciting. Only 2 Canonicals we can say with any certainty were actually soliciting on those respective nights.

                                And I submit in these cases, how the killer discovered his opportunity to strike is directly related to his access to them. Women asking strange men into dark corners are obviously an opportunistic killers preference.

                                Don't imagine these crimes occurred in a vacuum of news worthy stories Joshua, they were popularized by the press, anxious to sell papers and ridicule the police, they were not the most dangerous game going on in that town at that time.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X