Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Ben]

Hi John,

JtR was very consistent in respect of his MO and signature, I.e targeting prostitutes, demonstrating escalating violence, focussing on mutilations, murdering his victims by slitting their throat.

Ooh, but that’s a horribly circular argument, isn’t it?

If Jack the Ripper was “Aussie George” then he wasn’t “very consistent in respect of his MO and signature” because his crimes included those against boys. You can’t argue that he was “very consistent” on the basis of already having ruled out any possibility of him committing later offences that bore little similarity to earlier crimes; that's the very epitome of circular reasoning. You might argue that, as far as we know, the ripper only targetted prostitutes...

It was popular, at least for a time, to consider Severin Klosowski a lead runner for the ripper mantle, and yet his string of poisonings didn’t even have a sexual dimension to them, unlike the flashings (and whatever else) that Aussie George committed. You are quite wrong, therefore, to claim that the two sets of crimes were not "behavioural and thematically consistent". Pop along to the Klosowski threads if you’re looking for an example of a suspect whose crimes bore a genuine dissimilarity with the ripper's in terms of "behaviour" and "theme".

I was able to provide several examples, straight off the top of my head, of serial killers whose crimes targeted both boys and adult females, whereas you failed to cite any sources or statistics when pooh-poohing those examples as “exceptionally rare” or “not remotely likely” or “(insert inappropriate hyperbole here)”. You didn’t even acknowledge my correction of your mistaken impression that “sexual motivated serial killers” don’t “attack both genders”, which I thought was a pity.

I have no problem with your refusal to “buy” the idea of this particular George Hutchinson as ripper – especially as I never wrote the article, and thus have nothing to “sell” – but you should at least be prepared to bring more than the misunderstood results of a googled keyword search and misappropriated psychoanalyses to the table when you do. I brought up the case of Nathaniel Code in response to your erroneous claim that sexually-motivated crimes never span both genders (I’m the only person, as far as I’m aware, ever to bring up the case here), and then a couple of posts later, you’re waxing lyrical about the case. An uncharitable soul might be tempted to conclude that you researched the case online in response to the reference I made to him on this thread.

“In fact, frankly I think it a hundred times more likely that MJK was murdered by Astrachan Man than Aussie George.”

Well “frankly” that’s just silly, in my opinion, considering that both “Astrakhan man” and its author were discredited shortly after they were first introduced to the police, but then there exists a school of thought – usually restricted to the internet/hobbyist model of serial crime research – that continues to be titillated by the prospect of the ripper as a well-dressed dandy from the upper echelons. I’m not suggesting for a moment that you’re a card-carrying member of this fraternity, but it can be a geeky old game, this "ripperology" business, and since anyone can play, it’s not unusual to encounter the odd fancier of Gentleman Jack. An identifying feature of group, I've noticed, is a pretense towards having great insight into serial crime, as well as the frequent misuse of expressions such as “MO” and “signature”

[Ben]

a serialist with a clearly defined and homogenous group of victims and an extremely violent methodology, suddenly (or gradually) becoming a flasher focused on a different age group in the opposite gender and inflicting no physical damage at all.

But that's such a ludicrously detailed and specific set of criteria that the chances of it applying to more than one individual will always be laughably slim. Why don't you pop over to the Tumblety threads and employ that sort of reasoning there? Why don't you say "Hey Tumbletossers! Can you find me a single example of a serial killer who had a large moustache, rode a white horse, wore faux military uniform, came from Rochester NY and was gay? No? Then Tumblety wasn't the ripper".

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

My observation still stands, which is that you of all people have no business dismissing a suspect on the grounds that his behaviour would make him “rare” amongst serial killers, lest you be accused of hypocrisy and double standards. It is exceptionally “rare” for a serial killer to expose himself – if you’ll forgive the apt expression! – to police, press and public in the immediate aftermath of an early crime. If such behaviour is exhibited at all, it tends to occur in the wake of the last crime and often results in the capture of that serial killer. For such exposure – as a seemingly innocent witness – to be followed by another murder (in this case Chapman’s) in the same locality a few days later is rarer still, because it runs so contrary to prudent and rational behaviour of the type that we might expect from a more organised offender.

If Crossmere was the killer, it would also make him a “commuter” who ventured into the same locality, kill after kill, from a bolt-hole situated outside the murder zone, and thus “very rare” according to David Canter’s studies.

I’m not suggesting that a ripper theory suffers hugely from relying on him being a “rarity” in an already “exceptionally rare” subset of humanity; I am saying that someone like you, who subscribes to a particularly notorious example of such a theory, is in the worst position imaginable to decry other theories as weak because they too reject the premise that a proposed suspect must be shown to have engaged, at all times, in “normal” serial killer behaviour – whatever that is.

“I actually work from the presumption that I am by far the more knowledgeable of us in matters like these, so my guess is that we can safely rule out the latter suggestion.”

I was referring to actual knowledge, not just stuff you hastily Googled during the course of one of your interminable “debates”.

“They will also tell you that a killer with an identified victim group (like, for example, adult women), is unlikely to shift his interest to another group.

“They will also tell you that a shift of interest in the victim group involving a change of choice of gender is very, very rare. If it truly mirrors the killers interests, it is more or less unheard of.”

This is just psychobabble, and before you accuse me of attacking you personally, you needn’t worry, since it‘s not even your psychobabble. It’s something you think you read somewhere and are now regurgitating. What I’ve been producing are actual examples that illustrate the non-rarity of serial killers whose crimes spanned both genders and a variety of ages. If such outdated factoids as the ones you espouse were applied to known serial killer investigations - and if the offenders had not been caught - would be arguing that the Rostov Ripper was more than one person.

It is equally nonsensical to assert that a serial killer whose crimes “escalated” will never revert back to the sort of antisocial behaviour that they might have engaged in before that “escalation” happened. It’s akin to saying that a habitual car thief would never go back to merely speeding. Serial killers can, and have, engaged in minor crimes such as indecent exposure, “advanced” to the more serial crime of murder, before reverting back to indecent exposure.

“Albeit the misgivings with a number of posters who suggest that we should treat Astrakhan Man as somebody who has never existed, we actually need to treat him as a real figure as long as the opposite cannot nearly be proven.”

Albeit the misgivings with a number of posters who suggest that we should treat Crossmere as a serial killer, we actually need to treat him as an innocent witness as long as the opposite cannot nearly be proven.

Do you see what I did there, Fisherman?

Do you see, now, why it might be best not to get too involved in other suspect discussions, and confine yourself to the defense of your unpopular Crossmere theory? If you stick around here, which I hope you will, the expectation is that you will continue to score more and more own goals against your own suspect theory. Treating Astrakhan man as genuine until proven otherwise? Surely you must realise what a very silly argument that is for someone with your suspect agenda. How about we treat Crossmere as innocent “until proven otherwise”?

[Ben]

Now. That's a post.

I appreciate your saying so, Abby.

Unfortunately, I find myself debating this subject with people whose knowledge of serial crime appears to derive from CSI Leamington Spa.

[Sleuth1888]

Look forward to reading this interesting latest edition.

[Abby Normal]

Also, Mike and John, your 'not necessarily' is about JtR's MO. I'm talking about JtR's offender signature. Per expert forensic scientist Brent Turvey, JtR's signature was "the mutilation of victims' abdomens and reproductive organs".

Sorry,

Mike

yup. but I would add-and the removal/taking away of internal organs.

Nothing overtly sexual.

If he was a homosexual and or pedophile, I wonder if that added to his confusion/anger against women?

[mklhawley]

Also, Mike and John, your 'not necessarily' is about JtR's MO. I'm talking about JtR's offender signature. Per expert forensic scientist Brent Turvey, JtR's signature was "the mutilation of victims' abdomens and reproductive organs".

Sorry,

Mike

[mklhawley]

That isn't necessarily true. The pattern you see is prostitutes. The pattern the killer may have seen was "easy female victims" with prostitutes being the simplest victim to attain, but that doesn't necessitate any special predatory notion towards prostitutes. Many have argues against one victim or another even being on the game the night they were murdered, not that I agree with that. The idea of this pattern you suggest (and others of course) simplifies things in a way that aint necessarily so.

Mike

If the pattern was easy female victims - which I have no issues - it's still adult females. There are no boys, girls, and men. There were lots of old fart men who could have easily been victims, but were not.

My assumption certianly is the C5, but even minus one, it is still the same.

What you also need to take into account is, he attacked what makes women women, the womb. If he had time, Nichols would have experienced the same thing Chapman experienced. He cut the breasts off of Kelly. Sorry, I disagree with you and John (since he agreed with you on this).

Sadly, for your argument, there is a pattern against adult females, so have we ever seen a serial killer with a similar pattern then go for boys? I don't think so.

Sincerely,

Mike

[John G]

I donīt think either Shipman or Savile covers the example I ask for, Caz: a serialist with a clearly defined and homogenous group of victims and an extremely violent methodology, suddenly (or gradually) becoming a flasher focused on a different age group in the opposite gender and inflicting no physical damage at all.

You say that the possibility of such an offender is remote and I totally agree - I canīt even determine HOW remote, since trying to find such an example leaves me totally empty-handed so far.

I mean, exactly what is there, but for the coinciding name, to go on? Nothing at all. Or am I wrong on this?

No Fisherman, you are absolutely correct. Apart from extreme possibilities Aussie George is a hopeless candidate.

[John G]

Hi John,

I agree with this up to a point, because I believe sexual orientation is determined very early on and doesn't change unless convention or the law forces someone against their natural inclinations. But we don't know (yet) about any previous sexual offences this latest GH may have been guilty of, and he may well have been a flasher long before the conviction we know about. There is no reason to think this man suddenly emerged, fully transformed into a flasher who targeted young boys for that one occasion, whether he had ever attacked a Whitechapel prostitute or not. And I'm not sure the ripper's crimes necessarily imply he was sexually attracted to adult women, although I do find it probable, and strongly suspect he used unfortunates for sex before he graduated to their murder and mutilation.

There is always the possibility, however remote, that someone can quite happily divide his time from his teens onwards between flashing/assaulting young boys, having normal sex with adult women and more violently assaulting weaker members of either sex. It could be the victim's very vulnerability that provides the turn-on and triggers a certain reaction, with gender and age being lesser priorities. Dr. Shipman enjoyed his power of life and death over vulnerable elderly members of both sexes, their old age merely being a convenience that allowed him to get away with it for so long before suspicions were raised. Hell, just look at Jimmy Savile, who assaulted anything with - or without - a pulse for decades and wasn't 'outed' during his lifetime!

In short, there doesn't need to be a 'subsequently' here as we are missing a lot of sexual history leading up to GH's documented flashing episode.

Of course, this GH would need to be identified as the witness before Ben and others get too carried away.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz.

I agree, we can't completely rule out remote possibilities, such as JtR actually being Jill the Ripper, a crazy midwife. However, I'm not sure how many examples there are of serial killers, who are sexually attracted to adult women, transforming themselves into flashers, who indecently assault young boys.

Harold Shipman was, of course, a very different type of killer to JtR. There was clearly no sexual element to his crimes, and he was clearly an extreme egotist, who possibly regarded his victims as little more than insects. He also seemed to regard everything as a kind of game. As Detective Chief Inspector Wilians put it:" "I've listened to the interviews, and he certainly wanted to control and dominate the interview and the officers, at times belittling them. He was treating this as some sort of game, a competition, pitting his, what he considered to be his, superior intellect to those of the officers who were interviewing him."

And, as the South Manchester Coroner, who knew and worked with Shipman. Opined: "The only valid explanation for it is that he simply enjoyed viewing the process of dying and enjoyed the feeling of control over life and death, literally over life and death."

[John G]

This is true. Its the usual rule and rightly so.

However, There are exceptions and the ripper was an exception to begin with.

one of the biggest myths in criminology JohnG, is that serial killers don't change their MO or victimology-they do.

in this case, the common denominator is not women, but defenseless victims.

And there was no overt sexual connotation to the women murdered-it may have been curiosity/ what can my knife do?

Also, think of the BG man and his encounter with Sarah Lewis and the other women. see a similarity?

Hello Abby,

A timely recap on the differences between MO and signature methinks. To cite Keppel, "MO refers to the offender's characteristics during the commission of the crime that are necessary to complete the crime...signature characteristics, or a killer's calling card, are those actions that are unique to the offender and go beyond what is necessary to kill the victim. While MO can change over time, and reflect the nature of the crime, signature characteristics remain stable and reflect the nature of the offender." (Keppel, 2005).

However, a killer's signature can sometimes evolve, or become more elaborate, whilst remaining thematically and behavioural consistent: see Schlesinger, 2010).

A good example is Nathaniel Code. In respect of victimology, his victims ranged from an 8 year old to a 74 year old. And he murdered both women and men. Nonetheless, he had a very distinctive and consistent calling card, or signature. Thus, overkill was a signature element: he killed his victims by slashing their throats with a sawing motion, leaving deep wounds. And all victims received additional injuries. This satisfied his need for domination, control and manipulation. He also used ligatures, which involved an unusual configaration; he also bound his victims with telephone cable or electrical appliance cord,which he found at the scene of the crime. This was clearly a signature element as he could simply have bought rope with him, or used his duct tape.

So what we're JtR's signature characteristics? Well, Keppel highlights a number of characteristics, including overkill (obviously), picquerism, a need to completely incapacitate his victims, posing and Leavitt ng his victims in open display, in order to degrade them and for shock value.

So, what does this have to do with a flasher, who indecent assaults against boys? Answer: absolutely nothing. Different signatures, different perpetrators.

I also agree with Caz that he he was probably sexually attracted to adult women. As Keppel points out, "whilst some serial killers achieve sexual satisfaction through primary mechanisms (e.g..sexual assault), others resort to secondary mechanisms related to violence...he used a knife to penetrate the victim and satisfied himself through the eroticized power of violence, the domination of the victim, and the mutilation and bleeding of the victim, rather than sexual intercourse."

And, of course, if his signature demonstrates that his sexual orientation was heterosexual, he is very unlikely to be interested in young boys.

[Fisherman]

Hi John,

I agree with this up to a point, because I believe sexual orientation is determined very early on and doesn't change unless convention or the law forces someone against their natural inclinations. But we don't know (yet) about any previous sexual offences this latest GH may have been guilty of, and he may well have been a flasher long before the conviction we know about. There is no reason to think this man suddenly emerged, fully transformed into a flasher who targeted young boys for that one occasion, whether he had ever attacked a Whitechapel prostitute or not. And I'm not sure the ripper's crimes necessarily imply he was sexually attracted to adult women, although I do find it probable, and strongly suspect he used unfortunates for sex before he graduated to their murder and mutilation.

There is always the possibility, however remote, that someone can quite happily divide his time from his teens onwards between flashing/assaulting young boys, having normal sex with adult women and more violently assaulting weaker members of either sex. It could be the victim's very vulnerability that provides the turn-on and triggers a certain reaction, with gender and age being lesser priorities. Dr. Shipman enjoyed his power of life and death over vulnerable elderly members of both sexes, their old age merely being a convenience that allowed him to get away with it for so long before suspicions were raised. Hell, just look at Jimmy Savile, who assaulted anything with - or without - a pulse for decades and wasn't 'outed' during his lifetime!

In short, there doesn't need to be a 'subsequently' here as we are missing a lot of sexual history leading up to GH's documented flashing episode.

Of course, this GH would need to be identified as the witness before Ben and others get too carried away.

Love,

Caz
X

I donīt think either Shipman or Savile covers the example I ask for, Caz: a serialist with a clearly defined and homogenous group of victims and an extremely violent methodology, suddenly (or gradually) becoming a flasher focused on a different age group in the opposite gender and inflicting no physical damage at all.

You say that the possibility of such an offender is remote and I totally agree - I canīt even determine HOW remote, since trying to find such an example leaves me totally empty-handed so far.

I mean, exactly what is there, but for the coinciding name, to go on? Nothing at all. Or am I wrong on this?

[Abby Normal]

Hi John,

I agree with this up to a point, because I believe sexual orientation is determined very early on and doesn't change unless convention or the law forces someone against their natural inclinations. But we don't know (yet) about any previous sexual offences this latest GH may have been guilty of, and he may well have been a flasher long before the conviction we know about. There is no reason to think this man suddenly emerged, fully transformed into a flasher who targeted young boys for that one occasion, whether he had ever attacked a Whitechapel prostitute or not. And I'm not sure the ripper's crimes necessarily imply he was sexually attracted to adult women, although I do find it probable, and strongly suspect he used unfortunates for sex before he graduated to their murder and mutilation.

There is always the possibility, however remote, that someone can quite happily divide his time from his teens onwards between flashing/assaulting young boys, having normal sex with adult women and more violently assaulting weaker members of either sex. It could be the victim's very vulnerability that provides the turn-on and triggers a certain reaction, with gender and age being lesser priorities. Dr. Shipman enjoyed his power of life and death over vulnerable elderly members of both sexes, their old age merely being a convenience that allowed him to get away with it for so long before suspicions were raised. Hell, just look at Jimmy Savile, who assaulted anything with - or without - a pulse for decades and wasn't 'outed' during his lifetime!

In short, there doesn't need to be a 'subsequently' here as we are missing a lot of sexual history leading up to GH's documented flashing episode.

Of course, this GH would need to be identified as the witness before Ben and others get too carried away.

Love,

Caz
X

excellent post Caz. what I was trying to say also, just not as eloquent.

[caz]

Hi Fish,

Good point. As Schlesinger (2010), notes, serial killer rituals do sometimes evolve or become more elaborate. However, they still remain "behavioural and thematically consistent". The difficulty, therefore, is that there is nothing that is remotely consistent about a neck and abdominal mutilator who re-emerges several years later, fully transformed into a flasher who indecently assaults young boys. And this is even more apparent when you consider the sexual motive of the respective crimes; put simply, a serial killer who is attracted to adult women is not likely to subsequently become attracted to young boys.

Hi John,

I agree with this up to a point, because I believe sexual orientation is determined very early on and doesn't change unless convention or the law forces someone against their natural inclinations. But we don't know (yet) about any previous sexual offences this latest GH may have been guilty of, and he may well have been a flasher long before the conviction we know about. There is no reason to think this man suddenly emerged, fully transformed into a flasher who targeted young boys for that one occasion, whether he had ever attacked a Whitechapel prostitute or not. And I'm not sure the ripper's crimes necessarily imply he was sexually attracted to adult women, although I do find it probable, and strongly suspect he used unfortunates for sex before he graduated to their murder and mutilation.

There is always the possibility, however remote, that someone can quite happily divide his time from his teens onwards between flashing/assaulting young boys, having normal sex with adult women and more violently assaulting weaker members of either sex. It could be the victim's very vulnerability that provides the turn-on and triggers a certain reaction, with gender and age being lesser priorities. Dr. Shipman enjoyed his power of life and death over vulnerable elderly members of both sexes, their old age merely being a convenience that allowed him to get away with it for so long before suspicions were raised. Hell, just look at Jimmy Savile, who assaulted anything with - or without - a pulse for decades and wasn't 'outed' during his lifetime!

In short, there doesn't need to be a 'subsequently' here as we are missing a lot of sexual history leading up to GH's documented flashing episode.

Of course, this GH would need to be identified as the witness before Ben and others get too carried away.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

This is true. Its the usual rule and rightly so.

However, There are exceptions and the ripper was an exception to begin with.

one of the biggest myths in criminology JohnG, is that serial killers don't change their MO or victimology-they do.

in this case, the common denominator is not women, but defenseless victims.

And there was no overt sexual connotation to the women murdered-it may have been curiosity/ what can my knife do?

Also, think of the BG man and his encounter with Sarah Lewis and the other women. see a similarity?

Semper ordens, Abby - always ready. And one needs to be ready for surprises when looking into the twisted minds of serial killers.

But this time, the gap is too hard to bridge for me to accept a connection. Thatīs not to say that it is an impossible one - I canīt tell if it is.

But what examples are there of a serialist who initially extremely violently targetted people who belonged to the same grouping (prostituted women) only to then switch to another age group from the opposite gender - and refraining totally from inflicting physical damage in doing so?

I know of no such case myself, Iīm afraid.

There is therefore absolutely nothing at all to suggest a shared identity between JtR and Flash George. An open mind, allowing for a very dramatic change in target persons does nothing to alter that, as Iīm sure you will agree.