Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Thanks! I did not know that about Dahmer.

So he killed an 18 year old boy in 1978 and then went on to "flash" women and children in 1982 and two boys in 1986.

Sounds like Aussie George/ripper to me!


And it shows that serial killers can change from murder to indecent exposure (de-escalation)and that both sexes can be involved. And from adults to children. Its not impossible.

Another interesting note JohnG, is that Dahmer was a post Mortem mutilator, rare among serial killers, also like the ripper.

Of course Aussie George has another conviction prior to the indecent assault charge, in Australia, so interesting to know what that was!!

Hi Abby,

Yes, Dahmer was certainly an unusual serial killer. Randall Woodfield also committed several offences of indecent exposure before progressing to serial murder. There's also an interesting study by Dietz, Hazzlewood and Warren (1990), of 30 sexually sadistic criminals-although I don't regard JtR as a sadist. This study found that 43% of them had a known homosexual experience. And 20% committed minor sex offences such as peeping, indecent exposure and obscene telephone calls.

Of course, JtR has been described as a lust killer: a killer who obtains sexual gratification through murder. And mutilating, evisceration and organ removal are typical of this type of serial killer.

The question, therefore is: once JtR, to put it crudely, got a taste for killing and mutilating, would he be content to satisfy himself through much more minor sexual offences, I.e. indecent assault, particularly as he had hitherto been killing at a rapid rate, with a fairly consistent signature and showing a pattern of escalating violence. Of course, after Dahmer's first murder he was able to control his urge to kill for 9 years, during which time he committed numerous offences,including indecent exposure and the indecent assault of a young boy. Nonetheless, once he started killing again he could seemingly no longer control his urges, murdering 16 victims in a three and half year period.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Thanks! I did not know that about Dahmer.

So he killed an 18 year old boy in 1978 and then went on to "flash" women and children in 1982 and two boys in 1986.

Sounds like Aussie George/ripper to me!


And it shows that serial killers can change from murder to indecent exposure (de-escalation)and that both sexes can be involved. And from adults to children. Its not impossible.

Another interesting note JohnG, is that Dahmer was a post Mortem mutilator, rare among serial killers, also like the ripper.

Of course Aussie George has another conviction prior to the indecent assault charge, in Australia, so interesting to know what that was!!

Hello Abby,

I should add that a question that is impossible to determine is whether serial killers are able to control their urge to kill indefinitely, or just for sustained periods. Did Zodiac or Jack the Stripper (Hammersmith Nude Murderer) stop of their own volition, or were they incarcerated for unrelated crimes, or simply die or become incapacitated?

Rader hadn't killed for 14 years at the time he was captured, but nonetheless claimed he'd been planning to murder again. And, of course, Dahmer didn't kill for for 9 years after his first horrific murder, before going on a spree which resulted in 16 more victims in just over 3 years. Ridgeway's last known murder before he was captured was 13 years earlier, however, it does seem that he may have committed numerous killings that are not known about: 49 victims were attributed to him-over a period of 3 and half years-but he claimed he committed 71 murders.

Of course, Ridgeway, Dahmer and Rader all committed numerous murders over a period of several years. On the other hand, JtR may have committed 6 or more murders in just a few months (in fact, even if you count McKenzie then there was less than year between her murder and Tabram's). Would such a killer, who may have committed numerous murders, and who seemed to derive excitement from mutilating and eviscerating his victims, even collecting organs as trophies, be able to suddenly control his urges after less than a year?

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I should add that a question that is impossible to determine is whether serial killers are able to control their urge to kill indefinitely, or just for sustained periods. Did Zodiac or Jack the Stripper (Hammersmith Nude Murderer) stop of their own volition, or were they incarcerated for unrelated crimes, or simply die or become incapacitated?

Rader hadn't killed for 14 years at the time he was captured, but nonetheless claimed he'd been planning to murder again. And, of course, Dahmer didn't kill for for 9 years after his first horrific murder, before going on a spree which resulted in 16 more victims in just over 3 years. Ridgeway's last known murder before he was captured was 13 years earlier, however, it does seem that he may have committed numerous killings that are not known about: 49 victims were attributed to him-over a period of 3 and half years-but he claimed he committed 71 murders.

Of course, Ridgeway, Dahmer and Rader all committed numerous murders over a period of several years. On the other hand, JtR may have committed 6 or more murders in just a few months (in fact, even if you count McKenzie then there was less than year between her murder and Tabram's). Would such a killer, who may have committed numerous murders, and who seemed to derive excitement from mutilating and eviscerating his victims, even collecting organs as trophies, be able to suddenly control his urges after less than a year?

Thanks JohnG
I see your point about the flurry of killings but I think so. As you mentioned, theres precedent. Also, we don't know what his personal circumstances were that might have prohibited it. He may have gotten sick, his work made it prohibitive-who knows? it might not just had to do with being able to control urges.

And if its Aussie George, Able Seaman, maybe he was out to sea for a while?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Yes, Dahmer was certainly an unusual serial killer. Randall Woodfield also committed several offences of indecent exposure before progressing to serial murder. There's also an interesting study by Dietz, Hazzlewood and Warren (1990), of 30 sexually sadistic criminals-although I don't regard JtR as a sadist. This study found that 43% of them had a known homosexual experience. And 20% committed minor sex offences such as peeping, indecent exposure and obscene telephone calls.

Of course, JtR has been described as a lust killer: a killer who obtains sexual gratification through murder. And mutilating, evisceration and organ removal are typical of this type of serial killer.

The question, therefore is: once JtR, to put it crudely, got a taste for killing and mutilating, would he be content to satisfy himself through much more minor sexual offences, I.e. indecent assault, particularly as he had hitherto been killing at a rapid rate, with a fairly consistent signature and showing a pattern of escalating violence. Of course, after Dahmer's first murder he was able to control his urge to kill for 9 years, during which time he committed numerous offences,including indecent exposure and the indecent assault of a young boy. Nonetheless, once he started killing again he could seemingly no longer control his urges, murdering 16 victims in a three and half year period.

Hi JohnG
Re de-escalation. Albert deSalvo went from a rapid rate murdering spree to raping only.

Serial killers are complicated, the ripper was a type of serial killer -a post mortem type-even rarer among serial killers. He was odd among the odd.

I think we have established that serial killers can lay dormant, de-escalate, quit, change victimology, change MO, evolve signatures, change sexes targeted, enough that there really can be no hard and fast rules to count anyone out solely based on this.

So based on all this, I don't think we can rule out the ripper being one and the same with Aussie George-not at all.

[Harry D]

So based on all this, I don't think we can rule out the ripper being one and the same with Aussie George-not at all.

Contrariwise, there's no reason to rule him IN, either.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Re de-escalation. Albert deSalvo went from a rapid rate murdering spree to raping only.

Serial killers are complicated, the ripper was a type of serial killer -a post mortem type-even rarer among serial killers. He was odd among the odd.

I think we have established that serial killers can lay dormant, de-escalate, quit, change victimology, change MO, evolve signatures, change sexes targeted, enough that there really can be no hard and fast rules to count anyone out solely based on this.

So based on all this, I don't think we can rule out the ripper being one and the same with Aussie George-not at all.

Hello Abby,

Yes, there is, if course, controversy over de Salvo's murder confession-I believe he was only imprisoned for the rapes which, of course, still represent violent offences. Regarding the murders, I believe he confessed to 13 victims, who were all strangled, mainly with a nylon stocking, so that at least represents a high level of consistency.

Nonetheless, it's certainly true that some serial killers can be very unpredictable. Gary Taylor, for example, had an MO that was all over the place. He started off by hitting women over the head with a wrench at bus stops. Then he started shooting women with a rifle. He then developed a ruse to get women out of their apartments, usually phoning them pretending that there was some sort of emergency, I.e. at work, and then attacking them when they got into their car. And with one victim he posed as an FBI agent. Eventually, he kidnapped two women, tied them up in the basement, shot them in the head, and buried them in the backyard. He then stopped killing altogether and went round the country committing a series of rapes but letting his victims live! Mind you, one obvious link is that they were all violent assaults.

I suppose it all comes down to instinct in the end. If we accept JtR was response fir the C5 and Tabram then there is a clear pattern of escalation: from multiple stabbing, to throat cutting and evisceration, organ removal, facial injuries, and finally severe facial disfigurement and multiple organ removal. And all of this occurred within Judy a few weeks. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that such a killer would suddenly de-escalate, even to the extent of McKenzie or Coles. Of course, Dahmer stopped killing for 9 years after his first horrific murder, but once he started again he was pretty consistent. And JtR certainly seemed to have serious difficulty in controlling his urges, as evidenced by the risks he took, the escalation, and the rapid rate at which he killed.

I also agree with Harry. There is nothing to link Aussie George to Whitechapel, let alone any murders, apart from a name and the fact that he once sailed from London.

Of course, there's nothing that completely eliminates him, but the same could be said of Michael Maybrick...Oh, wait a minute. Apparently, he actually was JtR-Bruce Robinson's just solved the whole thing!

[Ben]

“Well, the "loitering" can be substantiated by Sarah Lewis, but what "lying" are we talking about?

What witness can you call on to substantiate Hutchinson "lying", and what was he lying about, according to this witness?”

I’m not sure you entirely understood my point, Jon.

You made the observation that plenty of people would have had non-murderous reasons for loitering and lying in the 1888 East End, and I acknowledged this. I then pointed out, however, that Hutchinson can be argued to have done both of these with things in the context of a ripper murder, thereby inviting suspicion. If you mean I can’t “prove” that Hutchinson lied, that would be a valid observation, but the “evidence” certainly “suggests” it, which is why a majority of people accept that he did precisely that – regardless of whether or not they believe he also loitered and/or also murdered people. Lots of people think he lied, and lots of people think he was Lewis’s loiterer; I happen to believe he did both, and regard him as a strong suspect in the Kelly murder for that reason.

“Hutchinson's vigil preceded the cry of "murder", but it did not precede Bond's estimated time of death. An estimate, that if correct, would implicate Blotchy not Hutchinson.”

That’s true, but there is no evidence that the police prioritised Bond’s suggested time of death to the exclusion of other evidence pointing to a different time.

“Agreed, which is why I think Sarah Lewis was chosen to testify, seeing as how we have two women who told similar tales, but only one of them saw this loiterer.”

If there was ever the remotest question of the coroner having to “chose” between Lewis and Kennedy (which there wasn’t, because the latter was quickly exposed as a phony), it would have been an absolute car-crash of a decision to go with Lewis on the basis that she was the one who had seen “the loiterer”. Kennedy claimed to have known the actual victim and to have seen her outside Ringers’ pub at 3.00am, which would have been the last known sighting of Kelly, had not the claim been bogus.

“The fact we, today, can make the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis's "loiterer", it goes without saying that Abberline would also make the connection.”

Nope, that is not remotely the case.

Show me the evidence that the connection was inferred by any latter-day student of the case at any point prior to the mid-1990s. Show me the evidence that the press of 1888 ever inferred such a connection.

“It is therefore "reasonable" to conclude the subsequent interrogation of Hutchinson was to allay any police suspicion of his involvement in the murder.”

Not even a possibility, Jon, let alone a “reasonable” one.

The “interrogation” of Hutchinson occurred before there was any time available to investigate Hutchinson’s potential culpability in the murder(s). They would have been relying entirely on his unverified and unverifiable (at that time) claims.

“We only possess one official opinion of Hutchinson's story, and there is not the slightest doubt expressed by police.”

Yes, there is – there is evidence of a proven communication between the police and a certain newspaper taken into their confidence, in which it was revealed that Hutchinson’s statement had suffered a “very reduced importance”, and was “considerably discounted” very shortly thereafter. Reinforcing this is the complete absence of any reference to Hutchinson in the later interviews and memoirs of senior police officials who would certainly have known the true fate of his evidence. A Jewish witness was described as being the only person to get a good view of the murderer, despite Hutchinson’s claim to have acquired a much better “view” than any of the Jewish witnesses.

But since this has nothing to do with the current discussion, and amounts to pure repetition of points that have already been covered extensively in generic Hutchinson debates (as thrashed out in 15,000 posts), I’ll happily accept that you are of a different opinion, and do not expect you to present a counter-rebuttal to any of the above on this thread.

“I appreciate you choose to believe that Lloyds did not know the difference between "term of imprisonment", and "held in custody", but a laborious search of BNA archives of Lloyds does not support your conjecture.”

This is your Isaacs theory, though, isn’t it? It has nothing to do with the recently proposed identity theory for Hutchinson. So I’ll just address this latest point, and then it’s no more Isaacs for this thread, please. “Term of imprisonment” is precisely what Isaacs would have been undergoing if he was remanded to a prison to await his sentencing. If you are sent to prison following an arrest, emerge from it briefly to be sentenced, and return to prison immediately following that sentence, you are effectively “in prison” from the arrest onwards.

“I occasionally receive invites to join Linkedin by email, just recently, attached to the page was a list of, "names you might know".
There was a Ben Holme listed.
I kind of wondered, how so?”

Curiouser and curiouser! I’ve a dim recollection of someone sending me an invitation to join Linkedin a while back, and I clicked yes without giving it much thought. I’ve done very little with it since. Do we have a mutual chum somewhere either from my Ontario visits or from Casebook?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

... it was revealed that Hutchinson’s statement had suffered a “very reduced importance”, and was “considerably discounted” very shortly thereafter.
All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben!

I don´t intend to go into this debate, but I have a question to ask where I would appreciate your answer. After that, I am out again.

Why do you suppose it was spoken about a "reduced importance" and why was it said that the statement had been "considerably discounted"?

Why did not ALL of the importance wear away? Why was the story "considerably" discounted instead of totally discounted?

What remained, and why?

I think it is fair to say that the police would have attached some little importance to the story and that they would not have discounted it on the whole. This is the implication of what was written.

What is your explanation to these slightly vague and very enigmatic formulations?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Why did not ALL of the importance wear away? Why was the story "considerably" discounted instead of totally discounted?

What remained, and why?

What remained was an absence of proof that Hutchinson lied and gave a false account of his movements. If such proof had been available, the story would naturally have been totally discounted (to borrow your expression), but because the police had only strong suspicions to go on (as they had with Violenia and others), they had to content themselves with "reducing" the importance of Hutchinson's statement, as opposed to eradicating it altogether.

With reference to some of the recent observations here, I don't think we can be too purist and rigid with regard to the "escalation" theory. Considering the nature of the Kelly murder, it is obvious that the ripper couldn't keep "escalating" in terms of violence and extent of mutilation - that would be almost impossible. Realistically therefore, he could only have "de-escalated" or plateaued, and if they were only very reduced opportunities for a continuation of Kelly-type murders after the 9th November (as we might reasonably assume), the ripper might have been forced to "de-escalate" if he wanted to continue killing (or committing any type of "sexual" offense) at all.

Regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fisherman,



What remained was an absence of proof that Hutchinson lied and gave a false account of his movements. If such proof had been available, the story would naturally have been totally discounted (to borrow your expression), but because the police had only strong suspicions to go on (as they had with Violenia and others), they had to content themselves with "reducing" the importance of Hutchinson's statement, as opposed to eradicating it altogether.

With reference to some of the recent observations here, I don't think we can be too purist and rigid with regard to the "escalation" theory. Considering the nature of the Kelly murder, it is obvious that the ripper couldn't keep "escalating" in terms of violence and extent of mutilation - that would be almost impossible. Realistically therefore, he could only have "de-escalated" or plateaued, and if they were only very reduced opportunities for a continuation of Kelly-type murders after the 9th November (as we might reasonably assume), the ripper might have been forced to "de-escalate" if he wanted to continue killing (or committing any type of "sexual" offense) at all.

Regards,
Ben

Hi Ben
Re de escalation-that is a good point. I have recently come to the conclusion that Alice McKenzie was a ripper victim for many reasons-but of course some on here discount Mckenzie because it is too much of a de escalation.

And discount her Regardless of all the reasons she fits with the previous ripper crimes and regardless of the probability that any de escalation could have been not because of any psychological reasons, but simply circumstances-he was disturbed, was extremely intoxicated, was sick, etc.

related to the idea of de-escalation and many discussions on this thread re serial killers changing victimology, MO, etc. on another thread we had been discussing William Suff, the Riverside prostitute killer, whos first kill was his infant child. He then went on to kill and mutilate many women.
Talk about a major change in victimology!

Another pertinent example for the argument that Aussie George as the ripper could have changed victimology.

BTW-its also interesting regarding Suff and changing MO, victimology etc.-He is the closest I have ever found (with Dahmer-who also changed from killing an adult to flashing children) in similarity to the ripper.
So not only Suff and Dahmer have similarity to the ripper but similarity to Aussie George as the ripper in regards to extreme changes in their methods and victims.

I just find it interesting that the two serial killers most like the ripper also have that extreme change in victimology that Aussie George as the ripper also displayed.

[Ben]

Many thanks for the information concerning Suff, Abby - most appreciated.

And I agree with your suggested reasons for the possible "de-escalation" that resulted in the McKenzie murder, if indeed she was one of the ripper's, which is by no means unlikely.

All the best,
Ben

[John G]

I think it's important to recognize that some serial killers are far more consistent than others. I've already mentioned Gary Taylor, who was extremely inconsistent, killing in different ways, and eventually giving up serial killing, becoming a serial rapist instead.

Dahmer , on the other hand, was pretty consistent once he started killing on a regular basis. And Kemper was very consistent: as I've noted, even his own mother didn't merit different treatment.

I see JtR as falling much more into the consistent camp, particularly regarding issues of escalation and overkill. For that reason McKenzie seems an unlikely victim, particularly as she was killed several months later.

However, there are clearly too many variables to be sure, and as Abby has correctly pointed out, situational factors need to be considered. As I've noted on the Bury thread Sutcliffe had a distinctive signature-hitting his victims over the head with a hammer and then inflicting a deep wound to the abdomen-and this may have amounted to acting out a fantasy, which could explain the consistency: he'd become fascinated in an exhibit showing a series of female torsos with windows in their bellies depicting the nine stages of pregnancy; and it's been argued by Professor Glenn Wilson that he was trying to replicate this hole in the belly when inflicting the injuries.

Nonetheless, he significantly deviated from this signature when he attacked Dr Bandura and attempted to strangle her with a rope. Sutcliffe Subsequently explained this anomaly on the grounds that he "didn't have any tools to finish her." In fact, Sutcliffe not only allowed the victim to survive, he even apologized to her!

Margaurite Walls, a previous murder, was also initially ruled-out as a possible Yorkshire Ripper victim, I.e. because she wasn't stabbed but strangled with a ligature, like Bandura. Sutcliffe explained the reason for this:"Because the press and media had attached a stigma, I had been known as the Yorkshire Ripper which to my mind didn't ring true at all. It was just my way of killing them but actually I found the method of strangulation even more horrible and took longer. "

So there you have it. The apparent de-escalation with McKenzie might be explained by JtR forgetting his black bag, and therefore having the wrong type of knife, or because he found being called "Jack the Ripper" offensive!

[hanway3]

Does anyone know when Ripperologist 146 will be fully published?
I look forward to downloading and reading the rest of the magazine with interest.

[Abby Normal]

Does anyone know when Ripperologist 146 will be fully published?
I look forward to downloading and reading the rest of the magazine with interest.

im wondering that also!!!
hopefully, it will include the full mug shot which includes the side view because from that you can really see the size and shape of the man-he was a very powerfully built man!

[Ben]

Since the author addressed the question of Hutchinson’s potential culpability in the McKenzie murder specifically, I thought it worth considering the location of his recorded residence in 1888 - the Victoria Home on the corner of Wentworth and Commercial Streets - in relation to the discovery of the body in Castle Alley. Suffice it to say that the Home was located a mere stone’s throw away from the alley in question, and although the murder itself was committed nearer the southern end of the short passage, it appears more than likely that a hypothetical Victoria Home-based murderer, fleeing the scene, had the option of a sneaky cut-through to the rear entrance to the building, thus accounting for Sargent Badham’s failure to notice anyone emerging from the Wentworth Street end.

I’m indebted to “Lechmere” for posting the following image on another thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=12318&stc=1&d=1311725235

if the killer happened to live in the home - along with 500 others on a nightly basis - it seems he had the option of bolting right into Chess Court, avoiding Badham stationed at the northern end of Old Castle Street, and making his way through open courtyards to what appears to have been an alternative entrance to the building. Unfortunately, the map in question does not indicate the presence of doors within walls or fences, and we have no means of determining if a solid wall separated Chess Court from the yard directly adjacent to the rear of the Victoria Home, but this seems unlikely considering that the vast amount of waste generated by the home necessitated a large storage area, conveniently situated for ease of collection by the bin men, and our location fits the bill very admirably in that regard.

In light of the forgoing, it may or may not be a coincidence that the man who gave a suspicious account of his activity in relation to the previous mutilation murder of a prostitute had a bolt hole situated in very close proximity to the latest such atrocity; a bolt-hole to which he could conceivably have fled in under two minutes following the murder of Alice McKenzie.

All the best,
Ben